[Peace-discuss] The real problem with Selma

[David Johnson]

Karen and all,

Selma is a very powerful well done film, and like a lot of things in life,
sometimes one has to make the best with what you have until you can get
something better.
In that regard, I think the film does serve a purpose in getting people to
think about the need for mass protest and direct action in demanding social
and economic change.
I do recommend that people see the film.
At the same time however we do need to be aware of propaganda subtle and
otherwise.

David Johnson





-----Original Message-----
From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] 
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 7:50 PM
To: David Johnson
Cc: Karen Medina; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The real problem with Selma

David J.'s observations are, as usual, spot-on. (I just wish he'd put a
little passion into it...)


On Jan 26, 2015, at 7:26 PM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss
<peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

> "All the black people had flaws, and those flaws were exposed . The
divisions among black America were demonstrated. "
>  
> Yes Karen it did, but remember Oprah Winfrey produces this film and hence
she has a definite neo-liberal elitist spin to it and more important totally
distorted the role of SNCC ( Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee )
and one of its leaders James Forman.
> The person who wrote this article is Adolph Reed, an African American
Leftist scholar who I happen to know.  I seriously doubt he " just read the
cliff notes ". You should read his entire article.
> Here is another section of the article ;
>  
> "Du Vernay's vision of the local movement doesn't extend much beyond King
and his SCLS confederates at all. Glen Ford rightly criticizes Selma's
characterization of the SNCC radicals' relation with King and SCLS. Du
Vernay reduces the tension to an expression of some of the SNCC activists'
ultimately petty and juvenile turf-protectiveness. Political or strategic
differences are beyond her purview. While license is what it is, and the
SNCC/SCLC tension is arguably not crucial to the story she wants to tell,
her choice to portray James Forman in particular as a young, narrow-minded
hothead may be as revealing as it is gratuitous and inaccurate. Forman was
one of the most systematically leftist voices in SNCC, a Korean War veteran,
a former teacher and organizer before going to join SNCC and was actually a
year older than King."
>  
> Also from Glen Ford's article via  Black Agenda Report ;
>  
> "Some people are missing from the film that absolutely should be in there.
No, I'm not talking about Stokely Carmichael, although yes, he is quite
relevant to the story. I mean the Kennedy brothers, John and Bobby, who were
the ones who authorized the bugging of Dr. King's phones and office and
hotel rooms. But Oprah loves the Kennedys, and so the movie leads the
audience to believe that J. Edgar Hoover and President Lyndon Johnson set
out to surveil and destroy King because of his push for voting rights. But
Attorney General Robert Kennedy signed the order, while his brother, who was
then president, was still alive. Oprah insults Black SNCC civil rights
heroes, but she protects the white, rich Kennedys.
> "Finally, near the end of the film, Dr. King is depicted as yearning for
an end to mass protests, so that Black people could achieve real political
power - quite clearly meaning the election of more Black people to office.
As if that's what the mass movement was all about, in King's mind. We know
that's not true, because Dr. King said the opposite in countless sermons,
speeches, books and essays; that he was seeking social transformation, a new
system of living. Three years after Selma, King died, still seeking to
revive the mass movement.
> "For Oprah Winfrey, Dr. King was just an opening act for a future
President Obama, and for an age of billionaire Black TV celebrities."
>  
> Remember Oprah a few weeks ago stating that she just didn't understand
what the Black Lives Matter organization wants because they have no clear
message of what they want?
> This was the exact same thing that talking heads in the corporate media
were saying about the Occupy Movement a few years ago. They knew what the
message of Occupy was but they were not about to talk about it, so to
belittle the movement and confuse people they stated that they just didn't
understand what Occupy wanted, hence implying that Occupy had no message and
were just a bunch of Anarchist Hippies causing trouble for the hell of it..
> I guess for someone like Oprah it is confusing since she doesn't have to
worry about being assaulted and murdered by the police. And for a
billionaire like her this is the best country in the world and everything is
hunky dory.
>  
> David J.
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On
Behalf Of Karen Medina via Peace-discuss
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 5:48 PM
> To: Peace-discuss List
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The real problem with Selma
>  
>  I assume these comments are about the 2014 film, Selma.
>  
> I will divide them. 
> 1) 
> ...reduction of politics to a narrative of racial triumph that projects
"positive images" of black accomplishment, extols exemplary black
individuals, stresses overcoming great adversity to attain success and
recognition, and inscribes a monolithic and transhistorical racism as the
fundamental obstacle confronting, and thus uniting, all black Americans.
History is beside the point for this potted narrative...
> 
> Seriously? Anyone who says the film portrayed positive images, extols
exemplary black individuals, and a portrayed a united black America did not
see the film. 
>  
> All the black people had flaws, and those flaws were exposed.
>  
> The divisions among black America were demonstrated. 
>  
> I remember when "holy" people were writing complaints about the first
Harry Potter book, saying that Potter was a devil worshiper. If you read the
first book and read the complaints about the books, you would quickly
realize that not one of the complaints reflected even the slightest truth
about the book. 
>  
> I believe the same is true here. Whoever wrote this about Selma read the
Cliff notes version and on the day that Cliff wrote it, Cliff was too busy
to get even the smallest bit of information correct.
>  
> -karen 
>  
>