Rick Badie / My Opinion

By what

October 30, 2007 8:44 AM | Link to this

You poor thing. I think you should get Jackson and Sharpton on this one. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

By Iagree

October 30, 2007 9:18 AM | Link to this

I agree!!!!!!!!!!! And we all know the only folks whining about making things racial, are the ones who’s never had to suffer thru segregation/discrimination/prejudices because of their skin color! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, we don’t know what you’re talking about, everything is equal and fair, we didn’t mean to enslave you and make you fight for your rights, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!! IDIOTS!!!!!

By LilburnDazed

October 30, 2007 9:35 AM | Link to this

Oh please. I guess you would rather us delete history and pretend some things never happened? Get over yourselves. Not a SINGLE ONE OF YOU WERE SLAVES! Racism is alive and well - amongst yourselves.

By SayWhat

October 30, 2007 9:37 AM | Link to this

The Thirteenth Amendment ratified in 1865 after the United States Civil War, abolished and prohibited slavery and secured a minimal degree of citizenship to former slaves. The Fourteenth Amendment ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all people “born or naturalized in the United States,” and includes the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. This amendment failed to explicitly prohibit vote discrimination on racial grounds.

The prohibition of voting rights discrimination on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of slavery was first codified by the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1870. Soon after the failure of Reconstruction, southern states found other means besides those enumerated in the Fifteenth Amendment to deny the vote to blacks, through violence, intimidation, via Jim Crow laws that included literacy tests, poll taxes, and also grandfather clauses that permitted otherwise disqualified voters whose grandfathers voted (thus allowing some white illiterates to vote), some with the aim and effect of re-imposing racially motivated restrictions on the voting process that prevented blacks from having political and economic power. Although the Fifteenth Amendment established particular voting rights, and gave Congress the authority to enforce those rights and regulate the voting process, the vote was still allowed to be withheld from most southern blacks and from non-white minorities throughout the U.S., from the post-Reconstruction era through the 1960s.

Now this is some shyt!!!!

By Mark

October 30, 2007 9:38 AM | Link to this

Someone please call the wahhambulance for poor little Ricky.

By Camouflage Removed

October 30, 2007 9:40 AM | Link to this

Make things what they are, call it what it is: Ethnic hatred.

By Diogenes

October 30, 2007 9:45 AM | Link to this

Those who insist on living in the past, and obsessively mulling over past injustices, will never learn to look forward, advance and grow. That is a simple, cold, hard truth. And, we see the manifestations of that truth daily.

By Lee

October 30, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

Good grief. Couldn’t think of anything else to write about, I see.

What to do? What to do?

I know, I’ll pull out the old race card. That seems to work for Cynthia Tucker and Terence Moore.

Bothers you that much, go rent a couple of Spike Lee movies.

By Aphrodite

October 30, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

And those who choose to ignore the past (even as it repeats itself to some degree) will never be able to handle truth! If you don’t know where you’ve been, it will be hard to see how far you’ve come and to envision where you’re going! And we see the manifestations of that truth daily!

By Bruce Wicox

October 30, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this

I think the novel captured the South perfectly, a petty self-absorbed racist society where apearance mattered far more than substance.

Sad part of it all, nothing has changed since the Civil War.

By LilburnDazed

October 30, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this

If nothing had changed since the Civil War we would not be having this ridiculous “conversation”.

By Jack

October 30, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this

It’s a MOVIE for crying out loud.

It is a classic that has endured throughout the years. Quit crying about a classic movie that was made before you were even born. What a bunch of babies. You would NEVER see this discussion anywhere else in the United States. Only in the south is racism still alive and well. And its because ya’ll continue to play that damn race card.

You continue to whine and cry about the past, but yet do nothing for the future…….

By George Chell

October 30, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

If the Germans did a similar show about their lost cause of Nazi Germany and evil Americans invading their country, we would be up in arms. Perhaps it tells us more about the power of the jews versus the blacks in this country.

By Bruce Wicox

October 30, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this

LilburnDazed it was a reference on atitudes, not technology.

“You continue to whine and cry about the past, but yet do nothing for the future…….” Those who forget their past are doomed to repeat it.

George Chell, Jews were enslaved in this country?

By George Chell

October 30, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this

“You continue to whine and cry about the past, but yet do nothing for the future…….”

This statement describes the southern whites very well, still whining about the lost cause, horrible Yankees, waving confederate flag, and belonging to organizations such as the League of the South and the Council of Conservative Citizens. Perhaps when your fellow southern whites stop whining about the lost cause I may be able to tell the writer to pipe down!!

By Lily Toad

October 30, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

Wow! I must be naive, because I can’t believe the posts on this blog. Rick, my grandparents revered the Old South and swore the “South Shall Rise Again.” So many White Southerners long for those days when their families had money and prestige, based on the slave system, so they LOVE books and movies about the way things used to be. Pitiful, because most White Southerners were not these rich landowners, but they felt superior to Blacks, because they had to feel superior to someone.

By George Chell

October 30, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this

“George Chell, Jews were enslaved in this country?”

No. Read my statement. I said that if Germany made a nostalgic movie about the Nazi days and how the evil Americans and British destroyed their lifestyle, we Americans would be up in arms. Yes, Jews were enslaved in Germany. If Jews were not as powerful as they are in the world, the Germans would do exactly what the southern whites did and do. Have a nostalgia for the past..in their case, Nazi Germany. Blacks dont have the power of the jews, except for the ravings from Jackson and Sharpton.

By Brad Wesley

October 30, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

What the heck does this column have to do with Gwinnett County? The other columnist in the Gwinnett section are even worse. I don’t know if it is laziness, underpaid columnist, or lack of editorial skill. With all of the serious topics affecting this County we get these irrelevant columns taking up space. Woody’s column about the GA vs. FLA game is a prime example. Who cares? That is what I read the sports page columnist for.

By Bruce Wicox

October 30, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

George Chell, if you had read my original comment you would have realized I am not a Southerner. All I asked for was for some clarification, your comments could have been taken a number of ways. No attack or insult intended.

By Bruce Wicox

October 30, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

And George Chell, you did not make the statement… “You continue to whine and cry about the past, but yet do nothing for the future…….”

If you check I was correct in my response to that writer.

By George Chell

October 30, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

Bruce Wilcox:

No insult intended towards you. I was insulting Jack. and of course the white southerners in general. What have they done since the Civil War. Mississippi still has the lowest graduation rates in the country followed by Louisiana and Alabama. Sure, black graduation rates pull it down. But, white graduation rates in these states are way behind those of Washington, Vermont, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, SD, ND and many others. The white southerners have not achieved anything other than wave confederate flags, join the League of the South and Council of Conservative Citizens.

By LilburnDazed

October 30, 2007 1:08 PM | Link to this

Yes indeed Bruce Wicox (or is it Wilcox?), you show racism is in fact alive and well in your little world. The only people on this board living in the old white racist south are the black members. Why should the south change? Should the south become like some of the northern mostly black metro areas like Philly or Chicago or Detroit? Those places are far more dangerous and socially backwards than anywhere in the south.

By Bruce Wilcox

October 30, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this

LilburnDazed thanks for pointing the missing l in my name. Now if I were Black, you may have a case, but I’m not, so you don’t.

By George Chell

October 30, 2007 2:30 PM | Link to this

“Why should the south change? Should the south become like some of the northern mostly black metro areas like Philly or Chicago or Detroit? Those places are far more dangerous and socially backwards than anywhere in the south.”

Oh really? What about Miami, Atlanta and New Orleans? How about white rural areas of the south having higher murder rates than white rural areas in Vermont or New Hampshire? How about white people killing other whites in the south?

By Alexis

October 30, 2007 3:13 PM | Link to this

Scarlett is a role model to young Southern women. I personally have always aspired to be “Scarlett-esque”. Mr. Badie, it is sad that you take a classic like this and have to twist it to fit your own racist views. Yes, slavery happened, and this book/movie is about the time period in which it was happening. Of course it’s going to show “happy darkies singing in the field” (to borrow a line from Rhett Butler). That was the Old South. The blacks, while slaves, were not militant, they were subserviant if for no other reason than fear of reprimand. While I understand that you, as a black man, are upset with these historical facts, they are facts nevertheless. Also, Mammy was not given a red peticoat for her loyalty to the O’Hara family, she was given the red peticoat by Captain Butler as a gift, a generousity based gift of friendship, not a reward for loyalty and servitude. Please re-watch the movie with an open mind.

By George Chell

October 30, 2007 3:37 PM | Link to this

“Scarlett is a role model to young Southern women. I personally have always aspired to be “Scarlett-esque”. Mr. Badie, it is sad that you take a classic like this and have to twist it to fit your own racist views. Yes, slavery happened, and this book/movie is about the time period in which it was happening. Of course it’s going to show “happy darkies singing in the field” (to borrow a line from Rhett Butler). That was the Old South. The blacks, while slaves, were not militant, they were subserviant if for no other reason than fear of reprimand. While I understand that you, as a black man, are upset with these historical facts, they are facts nevertheless. Also, Mammy was not given a red peticoat for her loyalty to the O’Hara family, she was given the red peticoat by Captain Butler as a gift, a generousity based gift of friendship, not a reward for loyalty and servitude. Please re-watch the movie with an open mind.”

History of racism, yes. But, say no to the nostalgia of the old south. There are better role models to southern women including Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Blanche Lambert Lincoln, Elizabeth Dole, Lindy Boggs, and a number of others who pulled themselves with their bootstraps.

By MIssissippi Lady

October 30, 2007 3:45 PM | Link to this

Dear Alexis, I couldn’t have said it better. It was a wonderful “book/movie”. I am from Atlanta, Ga and I find the entire story interesting and exciting.It was based on HISTORY, mine and yours, black and white.

By Lee

October 30, 2007 5:11 PM | Link to this

O, I wish I was in the land of cotton Old times there are not forgotten Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land.

In Dixie Land where I was born in Early on one frosty mornin’ Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land.

Chorus: O, I wish I was in Dixie! Hooray! Hooray! In Dixie Land I’ll take my stand To live and die in Dixie Away, away, Away down south in Dixie!

By George Chell

October 30, 2007 5:49 PM | Link to this

“O, I wish I was in the land of cotton Old times there are not forgotten Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land.

In Dixie Land where I was born in Early on one frosty mornin’ Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land.

Chorus: O, I wish I was in Dixie! Hooray! Hooray! In Dixie Land I’ll take my stand To live and die in Dixie Away, away, Away down south in Dixie!”

Comment:

Bring the good ol’ Bugle boys! We’ll sing another song, Sing it with a spirit that will start the world along, Sing it like we used to sing it fifty thousand strong, While we were marching through Georgia

Hurrah! Hurrah! We bring the Jubilee. Hurrah! Hurrah! The flag that makes you free, So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea, While we were marching through Georgia.

Yes and there were Union men who wept with joyful tears, When they saw the honored flag they had not seen for years; Hardly could they be restrained from breaking forth in cheers, While we were marching through Georgia.

“Sherman’s dashing Yankee boys will never make the coast!” So the saucy rebels said and ‘twas a handsome boast Had they not forgot, alas! to reckon with the Host While we were marching through Georgia.

So we made a thoroughfare for freedom and her train, Sixty miles of latitude, three hundred to the main; Treason fled before us, for resistance was in vain While we were marching through Georgia.

By George Chell

October 30, 2007 5:53 PM | Link to this

Bring the good ol’ Bugle boys! We’ll sing another song, Sing it with a spirit that will start the world along, Sing it like we used to sing it fifty thousand strong, While we were marching through Georgia

Hurrah! Hurrah! We bring the Jubilee. Hurrah! Hurrah! The flag that makes you free, So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea, While we were marching through Georgia.

By George Chell

October 30, 2007 5:57 PM | Link to this

And this one is even better:

Our campfires shone bright on the mountains That frowned on the river below. While we stood by our guns in the morning, And eagerly watched for the foe. When a rider came out of the darkness That hung over mountain and tree. And shouted “Boys! Up and be ready! For Sherman will march to the sea” And shouted “Boys, up and be ready, For Sherman will march to the sea”.

Then shout upon shout for bold Sherman Went up from each valley and glen. And the bugles re-echoed the music That rose from the lips of the men. For we know that the stars in our banners More bright in their splendor would be. And that blessings from North land would greet us, When Sherman marched down to the sea. And that blessings from North land would greet us, When Sherman marched down to the sea.

Then forward, boys, forward to battle, We marched on our wearisome way. And we stormed the wild hills of Resacca, God bless those who fell on that day! Then Kennesaw, dark in its glory, Frowned down on the flag of the free. But the East and the West bore our standards When Sherman marched down to the sea But the East and the West bore our standards When Sherman marched down to the sea

Still onward we pressed till our banners Swept out from Atlanta’s grim walls. And the blood of the patriot dampened The soil where the Traitor flag falls. We paused not to weep for the fallen That slept by each river and tree. But we twined them a wreath of the laurel, When Sherman marched down to the sea. But we twined them a wreath of the laurel, When Sherman marched down to the sea.

Proud, proud was our army that morning, That stood where the pine darkly towers When Shermand said, “Boys, you are weary, But today, fair Savannah is ours.” Then we all sand a song for our Chiertain, That echoed o’er river and lea, And the stars on our banners shone brighter, When Sherman marched down to the sea. And the stars on our banners shone brighter, When Sherman marched down to the sea.

By Soryu

October 30, 2007 6:18 PM | Link to this

Gone with the Wind was made in 1939. Was there racism in it—sure—it was made in 1939 you idiot. Peter Pan wasn’t so kind to the Indians “what made the red man red” either made in 1953. Oh there was a Gilligan’s Island episode made in 1965 that portrayed some of the most ugliest Japanese/Asian sterotypes. Should we complain about those too, Rick?

Basically, who cares if there was racism in it and basically get a life and find something important to write about. Racism in GWTW impacts your life how?

By Alexis

October 30, 2007 6:26 PM | Link to this

The simple fact is that the setting of the books was around the civil war, and of course racism existed during that time. Why else would there have been a civil war? The war of Northern Agression was fought to try to defend a genteel Southern way of life. Of course, that war was lost and the carpet baggers came, promising the darkies 40 acres and a mule, and well, the great Old South was a civilation Gone With The Wind. But honestly, it’s a book series and movie about a period in history that does not purport itself to be right or wrong, but rather just tells a story of a passionate love afair between a man and a woman, and all of the people in their lives, during a time of racism and war. It does not glorify neither the war nor the racism, but just shows them as they were; realities of the era. There is no reason to get insulted by this truly classic novel and movie. It should be enjoyed for the cinematic masterpiece that it is, and for the literally classic that it is; and not dissected and classified into any type of politically correct buckets that declare it evil, bad or racist. It is what it is, as the era was what it was.

By Soryu

October 30, 2007 6:29 PM | Link to this

Oh and one more thing, GWTW is meant to be a love story not a documentry on the plight of the poor blacks toiling in the fields or poor whites for that matter. The war and slavery are nothing but props.

And I’ve heard the same type of fools complain about Empire of the Sun that it painted the Japanese in too good a light and painted the Chinese in a bad light. Grrrr. Get a freaking life! It is not supposed to be a documentry about the war in China no more than GWTW is supposed to be one on slavery.

May you all get some type of pox for writing such crap.

By Bruce Wilcox

October 30, 2007 7:55 PM | Link to this

The South attacked the United States, Atlanta burnt to the ground, plantations gone, gone, the Southern traitors put down, a love story only Lincoln and Sherman could enjoy.

Soryu, the Japanese, like the South, attacked the United States, we won them both, the Japanese changed, the South has not, see the difference yet?

By tom bowden

October 30, 2007 8:46 PM | Link to this

I don’t CARE how GWTW leaves “people of your skin tone”!! The world doesn’t revolve around you, regardless of what the Democrats, Supreme Court, or Washington bureaucrats tell you. Your denegrading and smart-a* attitude towards everything Southern is no longer controversial; it is now just pathetic. Your “gains” came through legislation - not by changing minds and hearts. And as long as you try to destroy Southern heritage, you’ll continue to be miserable, paranoid individuals.

By Lee

October 30, 2007 10:27 PM | Link to this

Yeah, Sherman is someone to be proud of….

“Lincoln’s generals Sheridan and Sherman committed war crimes. Sherman, famous for his “march to the sea,” had made a habit of waging war on civilians from early on. Dr. Thomas J. DiLorenzo, economics professor at Loyola College in Baltimore and historian and writer, tells us that Sherman once wrote to his wife that his purpose was the “extermination, not of soldiers alone…but of the people” of the South. Sherman often ordered his soldiers, many of whom were street criminals from Northern as well as European cities, to shoot civilians at random. He ordered his men to burn entire towns in Tennessee and Mississippi and of course Georgia. And the thousands of letters and diaries that survived the war attest to the rape of both black and white women by Sherman’s men.”

By Kathleen

October 31, 2007 12:13 AM | Link to this

I can not begin to imagine how the movie would look to me as a black person. I do know that as a young white girl it was a spectacle first, as I had not seen a movie quite so well done back in those days. The characters were interesting, romantic, and flawed; the racism clear and embarassing. There were many stereotypes portrayed including Scarlet as the manipulative, as well as determined, Southern Belle, not someone I would particularly strive to be. Still, it portrayed a time in our history in a glorified way as many movies do, and for those reasons was entertaining. The sad portrayals of slaves had a profound impact on me as did the colored bathrooms I saw in gas stations traveling thru the south as a child. I hope that these things helped make me a better person today.

By Bruce Wilcox

October 31, 2007 12:21 AM | Link to this

“The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War” by the economics professor Dr. Thomas J. DiLorenzo. I hope he knows economics better than history.

By Paula

October 31, 2007 3:27 AM | Link to this

Racism is alive and well today, as evidenced by the complete lack of sensitivity toward our fellow man. I can certainly understand anger coming down through the generations of ancestors of slaves. I am saddened by this and feel at a loss of words to convey support for Mr. Badie. Realistically, can you tell him with a straight face to “just get over it”? What does that accomplish? What happened to the idea of trying to “walk a mile in his shoes”.. to ponder what it will take for him to feel better instead of attacking him for his resentment …what happened to the idea of treating others the way you would like to be treated? You don’t have to understand or agree with him, it probably is not possible for white folks to understand his resentment.. but can’t we empathize and respect his feeling and opinion? The disrespect I’ve witnessed in most of these comments… is embarrassing to some of us. Sometimes the loudest voices have the least to say. Rick… I, obviously one of the minority, feel the need to say these simple words, I’m sorry.

By Michael H. Smith

October 31, 2007 6:41 AM | Link to this

Likes to watch Leave it to Beaver, can’t overlook the racism in the Wind.

Ooooooooookay.

By Katie

October 31, 2007 8:40 AM | Link to this

I’m white and I am not sorry. My relatives had nothing to do with slavery, they were from Germany and Poland and were not here during the time of slavery. I am not going to apologize for something my heritage had nothing to do with. Personaly, I am sick of the race card being pulled. If black people want to get back at the white folks who enslaved them, the best way to do so is to get good grades, go to college, get good jobs and overall—do well and be happy. Stop killing each other, going to jail, selling drugs in your neighborhood and clean your neighborhoods up. Whitey is not preventing you from doing that. And, most of all, black men need to take care of the children that they bring into this world and stop blaming the whites for everything that goes wrong. Look in the mirror and make the changes you need to make to change your life for the better. Also, vote. You can’t get politicians in that support your beliefs if you only stand by and complain. Get out there in your communities and make the changes, stop playing the role of a victim for your entire life.

By LilburnDazed

October 31, 2007 8:58 AM | Link to this

Amen Katie, Amen. Yours may be the best post in this entire thread.

By Georg Chell

October 31, 2007 9:23 AM | Link to this

“Lincoln’s generals Sheridan and Sherman committed war crimes. Sherman, famous for his “march to the sea,” had made a habit of waging war on civilians from early on. Dr. Thomas J. DiLorenzo, economics professor at Loyola College in Baltimore and historian and writer, tells us that Sherman once wrote to his wife that his purpose was the “extermination, not of soldiers alone…but of the people” of the South. Sherman often ordered his soldiers, many of whom were street criminals from Northern as well as European cities, to shoot civilians at random. He ordered his men to burn entire towns in Tennessee and Mississippi and of course Georgia. And the thousands of letters and diaries that survived the war attest to the rape of both black and white women by Sherman’s men.”

Nathan B. Forrest was a war criminal as well and you white southerners still honor him, right? Remember Fort Pillow? Be thankful that you did not have to face Truman, Roosevelt or General Eisenhower, and be thankful that there was no air power at that time. You would have been bombed back to stone age like they did to Nazi Germany. Good thing for the south, that Truman was not around at that time. Otherwise Lee, Forrest and others would have been hanged like the Nazi war criminals. Be thankful for Sherman, Lincoln and Grant.

By George Chell

October 31, 2007 9:31 AM | Link to this

“The South attacked the United States, Atlanta burnt to the ground, plantations gone, gone, the Southern traitors put down, a love story only Lincoln and Sherman could enjoy.

Soryu, the Japanese, like the South, attacked the United States, we won them both, the Japanese changed, the South has not, see the difference yet?”

Bruce Wilcox:

That is because Lincoln and Grant and after that the traitor, Andrew Johnson went easy on the South, did away with reconstruction and allowed the southern whites to return to their old ways. The white southern scumbags call it the war of Northern Aggression, but who fired on the US at Fort Sumter?

Truman was far tougher than Lincoln and definitley tougher than Andrew Johnson. Unlike Truman who actively occupied Japan and made sure that the Japanese did not return to their old ways, Lincoln and Johnson allowed the South to return to its old ways.

And that is why south has not changed while the Japanese have.

By jim d

October 31, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this

Rick,

Let it serve as a reminder.

Lest we forget the words of poet and philosopher George Santayana:

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

If this movie helps just one person to recall the injustices commited against our fellow man, it indeed should be a classic and played every day.

By Katie

October 31, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this

We all know slavery was wrong. Exactly what do we have to continue to talk about and prevent from happening again? Nothing. Slavery would never happen again. Let’s move on now to bigger and better things.

By jim d

October 31, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this

Katie,

It truly is a pleasure to see someone with more faith in the human race than I do.

By jim d

October 31, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this

Katie,

Help me out here, I’d love to have your positive attitude.

If WE ALL know it was wrong why do hate crimes still take place? Why do hate organizations still exist and why do we see racial crimes happening every day across this nation?

By Katie

October 31, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this

I just feel that there will always be ingorant people out there who hate others for unjust reasons—that’s some people for you. Those few ignorant individuals cannot be changed and do not speak for the whole. They don’t speak for me or for those I choose to be around. You can’t make people change their thinking patterns, you can only hope that with time, we change our behaviors and the way we raise our children to think. Racism is alive but in my opinion it is close to being on its death bed. Hate crimes are terrible and so are the people who commit them—let’s not forget that. There are bad people in this world and there always will be. We are animals and we need to remember that.
Let us not forget that the Flat Earth Society still exists. Even though the world has been proven to be round, we can’t change this society. There will always be hate groups spouting off stupid ideals but we just have to remember that they are stupid ideals and that is all.

By The Truth

October 31, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

Note, the Flat Earth Society is not a hate group. I should have written a new paragraph. Just meant that there will always be some stupid idiot group spouting off some stupid hateful idea.

By Exador

October 31, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

Of course there are inaccuracies in the movie.

The book was far more realistic.

I wonder how many of the critics of GWTW think that ROOTS is not one-dimensional propaganda.

By Crystal

October 31, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this

I haven’t seen the movie in a long time, but I have seen the movie a lot of times.

Get over yourself in thinking that the glossing over the evils of slavery is denigrating to the black characters and, therefore, racist. The movie is 3.5 hours long cut down from 6 hours. I don’t know what ended up on the cutting room floor. Maybe you should READ THE BOOK, and then determine what the director decided to put the focus of the movie on. And I do think it would be possible to make a movie capturing a love story and someone’s fictious life living during the time of the Holocaust without showing the gassed corpses in the chambers.

Look at the book covers or movie posters about “Gone With The Wind.” They have Scarlett and Rhett in a lip lock not Master beating Slave out in the field.

The purpose of the movie was not the WAR, SLAVERY, nor about the genteel way of the South going in the wind. It was based on a fictious book about a love story and history of one woman that takes place during the American Civil war. It was not about hiccuping over slavery but rather, since it was a time piece set during the time of slavery, it was ‘added in’ but the PREMISE of the book was SCARLETT’S LIFE, not SLAVERY.

It shows the story of a few rich white landowners who were losing their power and their “poor” struggle to live in the new world that was being created during the Reconstruction. It showed how some finally came out of the dark and realized that what they were fighting for was not worth keeping in the first place.

Ashley laments of the needless deaths of his friends. He was going to set his father’s slaves free upon his father’s death anyway. Scarlett saying she blames the South and hates them for getting into a war they knew they couldn’t win with all their swaggering and boasting. Scarlett used prisoners instead of freed “darkies” because they were cheaper. It was all about MONEY, not slavery, for her.

The O’Hara’s had a white overseer who couldn’t have cared less that the genteel way of life was disappearing. In fact, by the end of the movie, he had more money and was talking smack back to the previous rich land owners that lost everything. He had enough money and tries to buy Tara for the back taxes. At the beginning of the movie, his white trash girlfriend, according to Mammy, was not worthy of receiving help from Mrs. O’Hara.

Go back and add up the minutes that the story line was about slavery and the ‘genteel way of the South” versus Scarlett being selfish and setting her mind to getting whatever she wanted no matter who got hurt in the process. She marries out of spite, marries her sister’s true love to pay the taxes on Tara, ignores the man who truly loves her and when she finally realizes that, it’s too late. THAT IS THE BASIS OF THE MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!

And calling Mammy a minstrel character? Obviously, you missed the part where Mammy stood up to Scarlett and told her she knew her devious plan to not go to Savannah but instead to Atlanta to meddle in Ashley and Melanie’s business. “You gonna be waiting for him just like a spider.”

Mammy also stood up to Sue Ellen when she came and told her she shouldn’t talk to Mr. Hamilton that way when he didn’t want to take off his clothes and put them in the boiling pot. Mammy in no uncertain terms told her that she would feel differently about that if Mr. Hamilton’s lice were to get on her.

Mammy held Scarlett back when Ashley is walking up the road after the war saying it’s Melanie’s husband, not yours.

I think Mammy was a very strong black character in the movie and was loved and respected. Her gift from Rhett was bought by him while he was on a trip. When he gave her the gift did he actually say “this is for being so loyal to our family.” No, you did. I also think it’s funny that you are more offended by his gift to Mammy than the fact that he raped Scarlett when she wouldn’t “put out”!!

Last but not least, go back and watch the movie and remember that it was released in 1939. It was acclaimed for musical score, cinematograhy, IT WAS IN TECHNICOLOR and these things add up to making it the best movie for its time, not just the storyline.

By Bruce Wilcox

October 31, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this

Crystal, is it not true that in great novel readers will interpert it differently? GWTW is not exactly ‘See Spot Run’, coming to a theater near you soon!

By Crystal

October 31, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this

Um, Bruce, I thought that was what Rick was asking for…other people’s interpretation of the movie…

By Bruce Wilcox

October 31, 2007 2:27 PM | Link to this

Sorry Crystal, your book report telling us all how we should have viewed the movie was very good, a Gold Star for the day.

By smart @ss

October 31, 2007 2:39 PM | Link to this

Crystal, Your interpretation about GWTW was the same as mine. I think folks can read anything into it they want to if they are just looking to gripe about something. Don’t sweat Wilcox. He’s always here and he thinks he knows everything. I have learned to ignore him. He’s not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. He’s just really brave behind his little keyboard. ‘

By Crystal

October 31, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this

Bruce, how about you READ between my fore and ring finger. There’s your gold star for the day.

By LilburnDazed

October 31, 2007 3:51 PM | Link to this

Haha! You rock Crystal. And nice post by the way. It is shorter and much more informative than Badie’s whiny nonsense.

By Sandy_C

October 31, 2007 4:00 PM | Link to this

an interesting excerpt from the Wikipedia listing for Gone With the Wind:

“Racial politics spilled into the film’s premiere in Atlanta, Georgia. As Georgia was a segregated state, Hattie McDaniel could not have attended the cinema without sitting in the “colored” section of the movie theater; to avoid troubling Selznick, she thus sent a letter saying she would not be able to attend. When Clark Gable heard that McDaniel did not want to attend because of the racial issue, he threatened to boycott the premiere unless McDaniel was able to attend; he later relented when McDaniel convinced him to go.[12]

At the costume ball during the premiere, local promoters recruited blacks to dress up as slaves and sing in a “Negro choir” on the steps of a white-columned plantation mansion built for the event. Many black community leaders refused to participate. But prominent Atlanta preacher Martin Luther King, Sr. attended, and he brought his 10-year-old son, future civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., who sang that night in the choir.

The film also resulted in an important moment in African-American history: Hattie McDaniel won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress, the first time an African-American actor received the award.

I’m a life-long, proud Southerner, but I can tell you that a lot of us, my parents included, were ashamed and angry at the way that blacks were treated by our society in years past. I’m white and I will never get over it or stop reminding people about it. Is it any wonder that blacks find it difficult to let go?

By tom bowden

October 31, 2007 8:17 PM | Link to this

To Sandy C.:

No, it’s no wonder blacks won’t let it go when misguided whites like you allow the media, Hollywood and parasites such as Jesse Jackson convince you to feel guilt over things that occured before you were born. If you want to fell this flase shmae, then please do so in silence! I’m White, Southern, and proud of it; and to paraprase Rhett, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn if you like it or not”!!

By tom bowden

October 31, 2007 8:17 PM | Link to this

To Sandy C.:

No, it’s no wonder blacks won’t let it go when misguided whites like you allow the media, Hollywood and parasites such as Jesse Jackson convince you to feel guilt over things that occured before you were born. If you want to fell this false shame, then please do so in silence! I’m White, Southern, and proud of it; and to paraprase Rhett, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn if you like it or not”!!

By tom bowden

October 31, 2007 8:17 PM | Link to this

To Sandy C.:

No, it’s no wonder blacks won’t let it go when misguided whites like you allow the media, Hollywood and parasites such as Jesse Jackson convince you to feel guilt over things that occured before you were born. If you want to fell this false shame, then please do so in silence! I’m White, Southern, and proud of it; and to paraprase Rhett, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn if you like it or not”!!

By Bruce Wilcox

October 31, 2007 11:54 PM | Link to this

smart @ss, I’m not hard to find.

tom bowden, as a proud Southerner why did y’all want to keep that Stars and Bars flag around for so long, talk about not letting it go? The South had to be draqged into civil society by the Civil Rights and Voting Acts of the 1960’s, not the 1860’s.

By Sandy_G

November 1, 2007 9:32 AM | Link to this

To Tom Bowden, Um, these things happened when I was a child. I personally witnessed teachers in my first grade class in Louisiana instruct us that “unfortunately” our school was going to be segregated and that we were not to play with or speak to the six-year-old black boy that was to join our class. I personally witnessed the teacher ignore him when he raised his hand, interrupt him when he tried to speak and make fun of the way he talked to his face in class in front of all of us.

I personally witnessed blacks made to ride on the back of the bus, use different water fountains and laundry facilitites. I personally witnessed the “whites only” sign that hung over many businesses in our town.

I personally witnessed my father, who was a Baptist minister, voted out of his church because he proposed allowing black servicemen from the nearby air force base to attend our church. Some of the deacons of our church were also KKK members and one of them, was also our local sherriff. We were forced to move out of the church parsonage and leave town because my father preached that the bible taught equality of all men.

I witnessed my grandmother beg my father not to speak out about his beliefs because she would also lose her job and be forced out of her home. Any whites that attempted to speak out during that time had crosses burned on their lawns and were ostracized by the community.

I lived it. I saw it first hand. It was not by any means limited to the south. Martin Luther King noted many times that he faced much more violent reactions from whites up north in places like Chicago than he ever did down south.

It’s true that the media can twist things and it’s true that people should move on. But the idea that racism didn’t exist in the past or wasn’t that bad or that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery is a bald-faced lie.

By Soryu

November 1, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

Paula:

And you would say you are sorry for what reason? Rick, was never a slave, nor was his parents or grand parents or perhaps even his great grand parents. And unless you are 160 years old or so, you were never a slaveholder and I bet neither were your parents, grandparents or perhaps your great grand parents or maybe none in your family since the vast majority of Americans descended from people who entered the US after 1865.

Yes, Rick, from me, Get over it.

Oh and Bruce, since South Carolina considered itself to be no longer part of the US, those troops on Sumter were foreign troops illegally occupying Carolina territory. How long would the US allow foreign troops to occupy its territory without trying to force them off of it?

As for Japan, since the US and the major oil exporters had cut off all oil exports to Japan as of early 1941 as well as other vital materials the US was in fact waging economic warfare against Japan, so it is a point of debate who attacked whom first. The South hasn’t changed? Okay, tell me when and where the next slave auction is.

Sherman did engage in warcrimes—Roswell, New Manchester, ethnic cleansing, the willful destruction of non-military civilian property, destruction of religious sites, destruction of educational institutions. The CSA was guilty of them as well, but since the war was fought almost exclusively on Confederate soil, more were comitted by the Union than by the Confederates. I consider FDR and Truman war criminals too, but the winners make the rules. We can start with Executive Order 9066 for starters.

By Soryu

November 1, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

Sandy G:

The war itself had little to do with slavery and everything to do with restoring the Union. Read Lincoln’s Letter to Horace Greeley dated August 22, 1862. While after January 1, 1863, ending slavery became a secondary goal of the Union, restoring the Union was the ultimate goal. If the Democrats had won in 1864, they would have had no problems restoring the Union with slavery intact. And even the CSA considered ending slavery, see Gen. Pat Cleburne’s proposal dated January 4, 1864 and at the end even the Confederate government was willing to end slavery in exchange for European recognition and military support as independence became a more important goal than saving slavery.

In one of the great ironies of history, secession was almost exclusively over slavery, but the war itself caused by secession was almost entirely not.

By Jennifer

November 2, 2007 9:21 AM | Link to this

I was very disappointed in your article about Gone with the Wind. How about thinking positive about what happened in the past instead of always negative! Thank God that your ancestors were brought to this wonderful country. Thank God that there was the Civil War where people(mostly white) fought against slavery, and won! Instead of watching the movie and being angry at the Rebs, try watching the movie and cheering on the Yankees! I don’t know any black person that if given the choice, would choose to move to Africa over living in this country where you have so many freedoms, good health care, money, freedom of religion, etc. So, be thankful for the past instead of so negative all the time!

By Soryu

November 2, 2007 9:34 AM | Link to this

Jennifer:

Most of the people fighting for the Union weren’t fighting to end slavery, they were fighting to save the Union. Just as most of those fighting for the Confederacy weren’t fighting to save it.

By Fair and Balanced

November 3, 2007 2:16 AM | Link to this

Mr. Badie, thanks for the column on GWTW. The movie certainly could not pass a “PC” test by today’s standards, but probably should be viewed in its 1939 context. Having been raised in the south in the 50’s and 60’s, I have never assumed that the romanticized story in any way accurately protrayed the war or slavery or the “old south”. What we do get is a fair look the attitudes of film makers before WWII: that is, it was apparently thought to be quite alright to use the old south as a backdrop for a romance story—with no obligation to make any PC points on slavery and racial issues.

This may surprise you: this white southern male tends to view the movie through the eyes of Mammy, the strong character who could see through the hypocricy and manipulative ways of Scarlet, and who certainly wouldn’t have condoned Rhett’s rape of Scarlet (that’s what we call it in 2007).

Thanks for raising the question—basically asking what people see in the movie worth honoring(?). Unfortunately, there have only been a few comments addressed to your question. Most have wandered off into discussions on the unCivil war, U.S. treatment of Japanese, the need for black males to be responsible, etc., etc.

Anyone who has read your columns regularly would know that you have been rather fair and balanced in calling the folks “of yours skin tone” to responsibility in education and parenting and voting and that you have not given much ground to those who make a living stirring the embers of racial resentment (A.S., J.J et al).

I suppose you’ll have to choose your battles. Since the merits of GWTW is the battleground for the moment, here’s what I’ve observed from reading the thread that follows this article: You’ve stirred up some ‘flaggers’ (blindly continuing the lost fight) and some ‘yankees’ (blind to racism in the north) and a couple of people who actually offered a few apologetical points for the movie. You didn’t ask that the movie be banned or boycotted. You just gave your take and asked for enlightenment.

I can’t imagine a 21st century black person enjoying a viewing of GWTW without being reminded of the inhumanities suffered by his race. I’m sorry that some white folks don’t get that.

Believe it or not, there are white southern Americans who appreciate GWTW for its place in the history of cinema who also are sincerely glad the union forces prevailed (but love to hate Sherman because of his ruthless tactics, burning and raping as he went). There are white southerners who abhor the evils of slavery and the mistreatment of people based on skin color who have never thought about GWTW being any part of the problem, but rather a cartoonish portrait of the south, painted in the 30s’.

We have come a long way since 1960. The events in Jena, Louisana tell me we have a ways to go. According to one wag, the old canon on the main street in Athens, GA is pointed north “just in case”.

We’re looking forward to your future coverage of racial progress (or lack of) in Gwinnett county. Once this GWTW thing “blows over”, you’ll be able to continue to bring it to us, “fair and balanced” as you have so often in the past.

By Fair and Balanced

November 3, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this

Mr. Badie: Another thouht … Understanding that your feelings about GWTW are colored by your life experience and your knowledge of history, perhaps the underlying problem with your criticism of the movie is that you were expecting Hollywood to present any issue accurately in a socially and morally responsible manner. That was not the apparent goal of most movie producers in the last century nor is it today. We should not look to Hollywood for our history. We should not look to Hollywood for truth around which to build our society for the future. Hollywood exists to make money for those who produce entertainment. If we want to get into the movie critic line of journalism, I suppose there are quite a few contemporary films we could attack for their negative effects on society. I join you in hoping that we will not be honoring the wrong ones as classics 75 years from now. Keep up the good work.

By Fair and Balanced

November 3, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this

More musings: The TV show, Amos and Andy, cannot be mentioned by a television critic today without a mention of its ramifications in race relations. The critic couldn’t say much about it having been creative or entertaining in any way, just that it is offensive by todays PC standards. Understandable.

Maybe you would be more comfortable if those honoring GWTW at this time would include some caveats and complaints about its romanticizing of history and how after all these years the movie has the dual effect of making black folks uncomfortable while giving some comfort to lovers of the Old South.

Some random thoughts for those who wanted to venture off the thread of racism in GWTW into the reasons behind the war itself … Don’t ever forget that there was a time when the Old North supported the institution of slavery, too. At one time governments in the north and the south condoned slavery. At the present time every state in the union would vote secret ballot to condemn slavery. However, there must be some moral high ground for the states who first recognized the moral bankruptcy of the institution.

If Hawaii or Alaska had insisted upon an escape clause or some sort of pre-nuptial to statehood, we probably wouldn’t have ratified them as states. Apparently this U.S. is an organization that’s easier to get into than out of.

Here’s a hypothetical scenario … What if California voted overwhelmingly to become an independent nation? Would we fight to keep them? Let’s say that they were leaving so that they could perpetuate a morally reprehensible practice (like slavery), then, yes, we would fight their succession. But, what if the U.S. went too conservative for them—what if they were leaving the union so that they could perpetuate legal abortions following a reversal of Roe v. Wade—would the “right to lifers” in power in Washington want to go to war to prevent them from leaving the union?

What if all of the states who favor secure borders were to pass and enforce strong immigration laws and all the folks who want to create sanctuaries were to eventually get all bunched up in a couple of cities and states — could this lead to a succession movement? Not now, you say, but what about 100 years from now. Who knows?

Most everyone seems to agree that a state should not have the right to perpetuate slavery. The position of the U.S. since the 1860’s is that a state should also not have the right to leave the union (for any reason?), even if 100% of its residents democratically voted to do so. But what if some people raise issues like abortion or sovereign borders vs. sanctuary to the moral equivalency of slavery vs. freedom and equality?

Maybe it would be easier to just order some popcorn and talk about movies. Coming to the thread so late, I realize that its possible that the participants have exhausted their passions on the subject and Mr. Badie can peacefully move on to other subjects.

P.S. I also realize that as a blog-newbee, I failed to follow apparent rules of blogging:

I apologize that I have taken up so much space. I hope I haven’t insulted anyone needlessly.

By dennisr

November 6, 2007 4:53 PM | Link to this

i always thought gwtw was grossly overated. charecters nobodt could even care about. but where do you get off calling virgil tibbs subserviant. ITHOTN is one of my top ten. as i remember virgil didn’t take anything off of anyone . even gillispie ,and he was tougher and smarter than all of the other charecters. how is that subserviant ?

By LilburnDazed

November 7, 2007 9:03 AM | Link to this

Your thoughts on In The Heat of The Night and their relevancy to this article are about as important as the gum stuck on the bottom of my left shoe.

By Sandy_C

November 7, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this

To: Soryu:

“The war itself had little to do with slavery and everything to do with restoring the Union. Read Lincoln’s Letter to Horace Greeley dated August 22, 1862.”

”**Rick, was never a slave, nor was his parents or grand parents or perhaps even his great grand parents. And unless you are 160 years old or so, you were never a slaveholder and I bet neither were your parents, grandparents or perhaps your great grand parents or maybe none in your family since the vast majority of Americans descended from people who entered the US after 1865.

Yes, Rick, from me, Get over it.**”

Okay, so using your logic, because Rick was never a slave and may not have been descended from slaves, he should remove any chip from his shoulder regarding past racism against blacks or the injustice of slavery and just “get over it”.

So then, if that logic holds true, shouldn’t you also remove the “plank” from your shoulder with regard to the reasons the south fought the war, especially in light of the fact that they lost the war? Yes, war crimes were committed and history may have been “revised” somewhat, but why are you still so defensive and indignant about that?

Why can’t you just “get over it”?