All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Mister Mets]

From my understanding D. W. Griffith is still taught in film classes, because despite all the problems with his films, he still pioneered many techniques still used in film today. You can't teach the history of film without devoting some time to him. Crash Course has a series on the history of film and he gets substantial parts of one episode, although they rightly bring up how racist his films were and what that did in addition to the filmography stuff.

D.W. Griffith is still taught, but there are some distinctions.

Birth of a Nation is an important work of American film, but it's not his only notable film. In 1997, the American Film Institute's Top 100 included Birth of a Nation. In 2007, their updated list swapped it for Intolerance, his follow-up.

Silent films are very much an acquired taste, especially when going outside of comedy or genre films. The average American filmgoer doesn't go for them.

Gone With the Wind remains popular in many circles.

As a Librarian, it is considered the worst sin to completely remove from existence any work of writing, art, media, documents, or anything similar. There was a lot of agonizing after 9/11 regarding books that discussed making explosives, but in the end, those books weren't removed,.

Smaller, public libraries tend to weed out their collections simply due to a lack of space. But, if you really are searching for something, just search WorldCat and you are bound to find it somewhere. Most library systems have access to Interlibrary Loan programs where you can borrow a book from another library if your local library does not have it.

Worse case, if you are willing to travel, most libraries are open access or by appointment so that you can travel to them to use their collections. In some cases, the librarians might be willing to photocopy a few pages from a rare book and send it to you for a small fee to cover the cost of printing.

Then there are online sources of books

• Google Books
• Google Scholar
• Internet Archive Books
• DOAB and DOAJ
• Hathi Trust
• Library of Congress Digital Collections
• Project Gutenberg

just to name a few.

That doesn't mean that rare, one-of-a-kind books, documents, to manuscripts haven't been lost forever. Wars and terrorism throughout history are notorious for destroying cultural places, including libraries.

But the current movement is to digitize as much as possible so that, even if something happens to the original print version, there will at least be a digital backup.

Bottom line, it's not the books or media themselves, it's how they are used. A book on explosives could be used to make weapons for acts of terrorism, or they can be used by people in the demolition business to legitimately take down old buildings or other structures like the recent Trump Casino implosion in AC.

You can have someone reading books on Nazi Germany in order to emulate them and march around with torches, seeking to terrorize non-whites. Or you can have someone, a historian, a student of history or political science, or a scholar in other areas, reading the books in order to create a new understanding of how movements like this evolve as a way to learn from and understand the past and how it affects the present.

Even Culturally insensitive works, especially as viewed through the modern lens, may have value. It's all in how you view it and how you use it.

Your point on librarians gets to some interesting questions.

Should librarians be gatekeepers? Should librarians guide people away from certain types of books? If so, how do we determine which books are targeted? How can I help make sure that as many librarians as possible are gatekeepers against books I don't like? (To be honest, I wouldn't want librarians to be gatekeepers against books I disagree with like White Fragility because I think exposure to those ideas is likely to turn off readers, rather than convert them.)

There are an extraordinary amount of public domain resources available, so a lot of material can be found regardless of what libraries do. But Dr Seuss and Gone With the Wind are not public domain.

One argument I've heard is that if a publisher doesn't want to make money on Dr Seuss' problematic books, they could solve the problem by allowing the copyright to expire.

And what about Jud Süß and Triumph des Willens?

Jud Süß appears to be notable mainly for being one of the most antisemitic films ever made, rather than anything to do with its quality. It and Triumph of the Will do appear to be readily available on Amazon and Ebay.

There does tend to be relatively limited interest in older foreign films in the United States.

[Mister Mets]

Exactly. IN Europe, nobody wishes to burn those movies nor do critics consider them great movies. They are preserved as evidences of past complicity and anti-semitic evidence.

SO Griffith, Gone with the Wind, and other horror-shows should be treated in the same way. Not destroyed or anything but definitely not institutionalized.

For a variety of reasons, movies about American genocide (various westerns) and slavery (GWTW) still have some kind of popular favor in a way the Nazi movies don't.

How do we fix that problem?

Should film critics who helped institutionalize problematic westerns be fired?

We should treat racists movies like Gone with the Wind the same way we treat racist/sexist books and plays in literature courses.



According to some of the posters campaigning for this, stopping terrorism. Imo I think it's more about assimilation. I don't know how to feel about niqab/burqa bans because even majority Muslim countries like Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia banned them.

Literature courses are for an audience seeking an education, who are likely to be deeply informed about the context.

That's not the case with a controversial mainstream work like Gone With the Wind, or anything by Dr Seuss.

Yeah, but McConnell had been recently reelected, and it's unlikely he'll seek another term since he'll in his early 80's once this one ends, so he had no reason to kiss Trump's ass. That bit of fealty made no sense to me.

I hate to say it, but Trump remains popular among Republican voters.

It could hurt McConnell's interests to have a fight. Trump could easily try to back anti-McConnell outsiders in the Senate races in Georgia, Arizona, Missouri, Ohio, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, which could either blow up plans to take back the Senate or result in dysfunctional idiots taking over.

[OopsIdiditagain]

How do we fix that problem?

Should film critics who helped institutionalize problematic westerns be fired?

Literature courses are for an audience seeking an education, who are likely to be deeply informed about the context.

That's not the case with a controversial mainstream work like Gone With the Wind, or anything by Dr Seuss.

Gone with the Wind can and has been used in educational settings though. The only thing separating "mainstream works" from other classics used in courses is someone's decision to use them or not.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Should film critics who helped institutionalize problematic westerns be fired?

Is that happening though?

Obviously it shouldn't happen just for that reason. More likely what's happening or might happen is that film scholars who propose teaching classic westerns or classic films or use the word "classic" might get frowns and furrowed brows from the university, or find themselves out of teach or needing to be defensive in the same way that in the neoliberal days, doing a course on Soviet Film or films with subtitles or doing films about marginal film-makers and B-Directors would get condescending responses.

Academia is always shaped by fashion, social pressure, and political attitudes, for better and for worse and to keep a job professors do have to respond dynamically and react accordingly. So if classic westerns are out of academic fashion, it's only fitting because nothing is fashionable forever. And, eventually the pendulum will swing the other way.

Like it's possible to envision a moment in the future where you have real accounting with the Civil War and that would make movies about it, even the Lost Cause, academic objects not subject to political baggage and misinterpretation. That's not gonna happen soon of course but it's in the realm of possibility.

[babyblob]

I think the Best Civil war movie I saw was one called The Blue and The Grey. First off the cast was great. Second it did not try and paint a glorious cause of the South. I mean there were of course Sothern characters who felt southern pride and beat the Yankees slavery and states rights but they did not make it out to be a great things. in fact the star john Hammond his character who is a man from Virginia is friends with the free black man that lives on his father land played amazingly by Paul Winfield. He is so upset at his friends lynching that he leaves home and vows never to fight for the south.

There are some racial slurs used in it. I think that may be the biggest problem with it. But it is without a doubt my favorite Civil War movie. If you can find the three disk uncut set it is well worth it.

[DrNewGod]

I went to Penn State for four years at the beginning of the 1980s, and out in State College (just about smack dab in the middle of the state) there seemed to have been a decent balance.
'Course, we're talking about 40 years ago . . .

Large universities outside of urban settings tend to be blue bubbles. Exceptions of course, being religious mission (more accurately, indoctrination and scam) institutions like Liberty.

[Tami]

D.W. Griffith is still taught, but there are some distinctions.

Birth of a Nation is an important work of American film, but it's not his only notable film. In 1997, the American Film Institute's Top 100 included Birth of a Nation. In 2007, their updated list swapped it for Intolerance, his follow-up.

Silent films are very much an acquired taste, especially when going outside of comedy or genre films. The average American filmgoer doesn't go for them.

Gone With the Wind remains popular in many circles.

Your point on librarians gets to some interesting questions.

Should librarians be gatekeepers? Should librarians guide people away from certain types of books? If so, how do we determine which books are targeted? How can I help make sure that as many librarians as possible are gatekeepers against books I don't like? (To be honest, I wouldn't want librarians to be gatekeepers against books I disagree with like White Fragility because I think exposure to those ideas is likely to turn off readers, rather than convert them.)

There are an extraordinary amount of public domain resources available, so a lot of material can be found regardless of what libraries do. But Dr Seuss and Gone With the Wind are not public domain.

One argument I've heard is that if a publisher doesn't want to make money on Dr Seuss' problematic books, they could solve the problem by allowing the copyright to expire.

Jud Süß appears to be notable mainly for being one of the most antisemitic films ever made, rather than anything to do with its quality. It and Triumph of the Will do appear to be readily available on Amazon and Ebay.

There does tend to be relatively limited interest in older foreign films in the United States.

The American Library Association has been dealing with those questions since 1876 when it was founded: Library Bill of Rights

[Kirby101]

H

Should film critics who helped institutionalize problematic westerns be fired?

This is the second time you brought this up. Did someone here say they should? Did someone anywhere say they should? Do you have a link of critics being threatened? Or is this another Strawman?

[Mister Mets]

I think the Best Civil war movie I saw was one called The Blue and The Grey. First off the cast was great. Second it did not try and paint a glorious cause of the South. I mean there were of course Sothern characters who felt southern pride and beat the Yankees slavery and states rights but they did not make it out to be a great things. in fact the star john Hammond his character who is a man from Virginia is friends with the free black man that lives on his father land played amazingly by Paul Winfield. He is so upset at his friends lynching that he leaves home and vows never to fight for the south.

There are some racial slurs used in it. I think that may be the biggest problem with it. But it is without a doubt my favorite Civil War movie. If you can find the three disk uncut set it is well worth it.

Never heard of it. Thanks for the recommendation.

Old TV mini-series are a major cultural blindspot for me. These were once monster hits that shaped millions of Americans, but many have faded into obscurity.

This is the second time you brought this up. Did someone here say they should? Did someone anywhere say they should? Do you have a link of critics being threatened? Or is this another Strawman?

Not a strawman, as I'm not suggesting this is what anyone here believes.

It's more of an extrapolation of where we may be going based on recent cultural controversies. I would legitimately like to hear from people to my left that it's a stupid idea, will never happen, and that in the unlikely event that someone at a newspaper calls for the dismissal of a film critic for previously considering Gone with the Wind a great movie, the critic isn't the one who should be fired.

Is that happening though?

Obviously it shouldn't happen just for that reason. More likely what's happening or might happen is that film scholars who propose teaching classic westerns or classic films or use the word "classic" might get frowns and furrowed brows from the university, or find themselves out of teach or needing to be defensive in the same way that in the neoliberal days, doing a course on Soviet Film or films with subtitles or doing films about marginal film-makers and B-Directors would get condescending responses.

Academia is always shaped by fashion, social pressure, and political attitudes, for better and for worse and to keep a job professors do have to respond dynamically and react accordingly. So if classic westerns are out of academic fashion, it's only fitting because nothing is fashionable forever. And, eventually the pendulum will swing the other way.

Like it's possible to envision a moment in the future where you have real accounting with the Civil War and that would make movies about it, even the Lost Cause, academic objects not subject to political baggage and misinterpretation. That's not gonna happen soon of course but it's in the realm of possibility.

I was thinking more about critics than academia.

That said, there would be a distinction between someone writing about an unfashionable genre and wasting their time, and someone writing about an unfashionable genre the wrong way and getting pushed out of their job.

The American Library Association has been dealing with those questions since 1876 when it was founded: Library Bill of Rights

Very interesting. Thanks.

They reflects the argument that the way to handle bad speech is by allowing more speech.

I suspect there's going to be some pushback to this pretty soon, given that it calls for allowing access to material by bigots and controversial figures.

Gone with the Wind can and has been used in educational settings though. The only thing separating "mainstream works" from other classics used in courses is someone's decision to use them or not.

How to cover something in an academic setting is a different question from how to handle it in a mainstream setting. It would be one thing to analyze the Dr Seuss books in the context of a college classroom analyzing children's literature, depiction of race, or post-World War II America. But it is a different argument about what to do with a general audience who are just looking for something to read to their kid at night.

I would say that this whole mess could have been avoided if they just announced that new printings of these books will include an essay about the historical context, and the dangers of racial stereotypes.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

That said, there would be a distinction between someone writing about an unfashionable genre and wasting their time, and someone writing about an unfashionable genre the wrong way and getting pushed out of their job.

You mean like what happened to the Dixie Chicks when they criticized the Iraq War?

Spencer Ackerman has a new book coming out where he pointed out that the worst period for Freedom of Speech in American culture in the last 20 years was the W. years in the run-up to Iraq.

Let's hear Republicans make apologies for that era first, before entertaining insinuating allegations without evidence.

[babyblob]

Never heard of it. Thanks for the recommendation.

Old TV mini-series are a major cultural blindspot for me. These were once monster hits that shaped millions of Americans, but many have faded into obscurity.

If you do get it get the uncut version. There are some neat little scenes like the main character John's interaction with John Brown, or john's "Duel" With the German military advisor.

The uncut version is 3 discs and is on Amazon for 23.99. It is well worth it. Stars include John Hammond, Stacy Keach, Greggory Peck, Paul Winfield, Lloyd Bridges.

It is not heavy on action. The main character John is an artist reporter for Harpers and it shows his drama living with his Northern Cousins who accept and love him and the falling out with his older brothers, father and hardcore Pro Southern Sister.

The VHS of this movie as a child is what got me into the civil war.

[Kirby101]

Not a strawman, as I'm not suggesting this is what anyone here believes.

It's more of an extrapolation of where we may be going based on recent cultural controversies. I would legitimately like to hear from people to my left that it's a stupid idea, will never happen, and that in the unlikely event that someone at a newspaper calls for the dismissal of a film critic for previously considering Gone with the Wind a great movie, the critic isn't the one who should be fired.

So bringing up a controversy that doesn't exist to make "those on the left" take a stand on something that isn't happening. That is a Strawman.

[DrNewGod]

If you do get it get the uncut version. There are some neat little scenes like the main character John's interaction with John Brown, or john's "Duel" With the German military advisor.

The uncut version is 3 discs and is on Amazon for 23.99. It is well worth it. Stars include John Hammond, Stacy Keach, Greggory Peck, Paul Winfield, Lloyd Bridges.

It is not heavy on action. The main character John is an artist reporter for Harpers and it shows his drama living with his Northern Cousins who accept and love him and the falling out with his older brothers, father and hardcore Pro Southern Sister.

The VHS of this movie as a child is what got me into the civil war.

I remember that now. It was good.

[Mister Mets]

So bringing up a controversy that doesn't exist to make "those on the left" take a stand on something that isn't happening. That is a Strawman.

A strawman is when one person refutes an exaggerated version of an argument while pretending to respond to the real argument.

That's not the case here.

I'm just interested in seeing what people here would be willing to support to get a sense of what the actual positions are.

You mean like what happened to the Dixie Chicks when they criticized the Iraq War?

Spencer Ackerman has a new book coming out where he pointed out that the worst period for Freedom of Speech in American culture in the last 20 years was the W. years in the run-up to Iraq.

Let's hear Republicans make apologies for that era first, before entertaining insinuating allegations without evidence.

Republicans aren't a monolith. There's always going to be disagreement.

In the era I grew up, conservatives were generally the ones calling for things to be banned or boycotted, be it Dogma or the Dixie Chicks.

The argument that I had accepted was that conservatives were wrong to do so. Politcally, there were consequences for Republicans as the party lost Congress in 2006 and a progressive Senator beloved by Hollywood won the White House in 2008.

I do not recall progressives at the time arguing that the conservatives just had the wrong target, but were correct in their approach.

[Tendrin]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alabama...sgender-youth/

Under a new law, transgender youth in Alabama could not be treated with puberty-blockers, hormone therapy or surgery. The state Senate voted to make the treatment a felony on Tuesday.


Senators voted 23-4 to approve the measure, dubbed the Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act, sponsored by Republican Senator Shay Shelnutt. The bill now heads to the state House of Representatives, which has already approved a companion bill.

The bill also requires school staff in the state to disclose to parents that "a minor's perception that his or her gender is inconsistent with his or her sex." Essentially, teachers would be required to "out" transgender students to their guardians — regardless of whether they are ready to do so.

The GOP sees trans issues as a wedge issue it can weapoinize for working class votes. Fallon Fox fearmongering has consequences for real trans people and this is just one example.