@CelluloidFan said:

What is… “virtue signaling?”

I don’t have any kids.

It is claiming to believe or support something because it makes you look "good" even though you really don't give a crap.

(Not something I would personally accuse you of)

@movie_nazi said:

@CelluloidFan said:

@acontributor said:

I'll be devil's advocate and say I don't think that the statues should be taken down because you shouldn't erase history. But I agree with you that slavery is a repugnant practice. I'm not a Southerner so I'm not the best person to be defending the statues. But if you start taking down historical monuments where do you stop?

I'm a southerner now, so I will weigh in on this. I'm pretty lukewarm on the statues being taken down here, there, wherever, and here's why. A statue is like a flag, it's a SYMBOL. We shouldn't burn the American flag, not because it's traitorous but because it's a symbol. Symbols don't perpetuate good ol' racism (meaning white supremacy), people do. I saw statues of Civil War soldiers being taken down around here on the news, and I saw the white guys standing around the statues expressing remarkable anger at those statues. Even if the way that statue made this black person, that person feel ends, the people, the institutions helping to maintain racism and probably sexism are still intact. And it's like that.

For some reason, the statues don't bug me that much. It bugs me to hear about them being taken down here and there on the TV like "So much progress is being made on account of this." Bullshit.

You should never express anger or hatred toward a flag, a geographical area, or possibly, even a statue.

Well the virtue signaling is BS but imagine being a black man or woman and walking in a park with your child and the child asking who general Stonewall Jackson is. "Oh honey, that is a man who thought so strongly that you and I should be property than not only did he agree with sending little white boys to their deaths but also died in the process as well. They deserve much respect, doncha think? Thus, this grand statue is now erected". I mean like, WTF? This is why I bring up the Hitler statue as example. Imagine how insulting that would be to the people of Germany. It would be a reminder saying, "Remember when you people were so fkn stupid you fell for this guy's BS?" . Also the fact that 90% of these statues went up after the civil rights movement makes their existence suspect or as the kids say nowadays "Suss" .

Um, movie nazi... do you know me?? I say this because you are a stranger; I know nothing about you. I don't feel that you're fit to judge me, my morals, and whether I am doing what Gus stated at all.

Furthermore, I am black. Have you seen my picture, on Instagram?

@CelluloidFan said:

@movie_nazi said:

@CelluloidFan said:

@acontributor said:

I'll be devil's advocate and say I don't think that the statues should be taken down because you shouldn't erase history. But I agree with you that slavery is a repugnant practice. I'm not a Southerner so I'm not the best person to be defending the statues. But if you start taking down historical monuments where do you stop?

I'm a southerner now, so I will weigh in on this. I'm pretty lukewarm on the statues being taken down here, there, wherever, and here's why. A statue is like a flag, it's a SYMBOL. We shouldn't burn the American flag, not because it's traitorous but because it's a symbol. Symbols don't perpetuate good ol' racism (meaning white supremacy), people do. I saw statues of Civil War soldiers being taken down around here on the news, and I saw the white guys standing around the statues expressing remarkable anger at those statues. Even if the way that statue made this black person, that person feel ends, the people, the institutions helping to maintain racism and probably sexism are still intact. And it's like that.

For some reason, the statues don't bug me that much. It bugs me to hear about them being taken down here and there on the TV like "So much progress is being made on account of this." Bullshit.

You should never express anger or hatred toward a flag, a geographical area, or possibly, even a statue.

Well the virtue signaling is BS but imagine being a black man or woman and walking in a park with your child and the child asking who general Stonewall Jackson is. "Oh honey, that is a man who thought so strongly that you and I should be property than not only did he agree with sending little white boys to their deaths but also died in the process as well. They deserve much respect, doncha think? Thus, this grand statue is now erected". I mean like, WTF? This is why I bring up the Hitler statue as example. Imagine how insulting that would be to the people of Germany. It would be a reminder saying, "Remember when you people were so fkn stupid you fell for this guy's BS?" . Also the fact that 90% of these statues went up after the civil rights movement makes their existence suspect or as the kids say nowadays "Suss" .

Um, movie nazi... do you know me?? I say this because you are a stranger; I know nothing about you. I don't feel that you're fit to judge me, my morals, and whether I am doing what Gus stated at all.

Furthermore, I am black. Have you seen my picture, on Instagram?

What are you talking about? How am I judging your morals? You need to chill out. You are taking this a bit too personal. Not once did I ever direct anything at you, personally.

@movie_nazi said:

@CelluloidFan said:

@movie_nazi said:

@CelluloidFan said:

@acontributor said:

I'll be devil's advocate and say I don't think that the statues should be taken down because you shouldn't erase history. But I agree with you that slavery is a repugnant practice. I'm not a Southerner so I'm not the best person to be defending the statues. But if you start taking down historical monuments where do you stop?

I'm a southerner now, so I will weigh in on this. I'm pretty lukewarm on the statues being taken down here, there, wherever, and here's why. A statue is like a flag, it's a SYMBOL. We shouldn't burn the American flag, not because it's traitorous but because it's a symbol. Symbols don't perpetuate good ol' racism (meaning white supremacy), people do. I saw statues of Civil War soldiers being taken down around here on the news, and I saw the white guys standing around the statues expressing remarkable anger at those statues. Even if the way that statue made this black person, that person feel ends, the people, the institutions helping to maintain racism and probably sexism are still intact. And it's like that.

For some reason, the statues don't bug me that much. It bugs me to hear about them being taken down here and there on the TV like "So much progress is being made on account of this." Bullshit.

You should never express anger or hatred toward a flag, a geographical area, or possibly, even a statue.

Well the virtue signaling is BS but imagine being a black man or woman and walking in a park with your child and the child asking who general Stonewall Jackson is. "Oh honey, that is a man who thought so strongly that you and I should be property than not only did he agree with sending little white boys to their deaths but also died in the process as well. They deserve much respect, doncha think? Thus, this grand statue is now erected". I mean like, WTF? This is why I bring up the Hitler statue as example. Imagine how insulting that would be to the people of Germany. It would be a reminder saying, "Remember when you people were so fkn stupid you fell for this guy's BS?" . Also the fact that 90% of these statues went up after the civil rights movement makes their existence suspect or as the kids say nowadays "Suss" .

Um, movie nazi... do you know me?? I say this because you are a stranger; I know nothing about you. I don't feel that you're fit to judge me, my morals, and whether I am doing what Gus stated at all.

Furthermore, I am black. Have you seen my picture, on Instagram?

What are you talking about? How am I judging your morals? You need to chill out. You are taking this a bit too personal. Not once did I ever direct anything at you, personally.

No problem.

@movie_nazi said:

@acontributor said:

I didn't say anything about erecting statues of villains from history. I said that historical monuments shouldn't be torn down because then where does it stop?

It stops when there are no more statues of villains. Granted if you want to erect a statue on your private property of whomever, go for it. Just not on public property.

What's really unclear to me about your statement is how we all define a "villain." Your idea of a hero might be my idea of a villain, and vice versa.

EDIT: I'll try to explain what I'm getting at up above. The fancy-shmancy term for the idea I'm putting forth is moral relativism.

Numerous years ago, back when a little AMC show called "The Walking Dead" was still kinda good, the makers of the show shocked viewers by killing off two fan favorites. The actor who played the guy that killed these characters onscreen explained that his brutal murders of the characters Glenn and Abraham were motivated by their taking part in killing off a bunch of his soldiers, while the soldiers were sleeping. In the actor's eyes, his character (Negan) was simply getting even with Abraham's crew.

The actor went on to awkwardly posit that maybe Abraham's friend, Rick Grimes (considered by most to be the hero of the show), could be a villain as well because he had once bitten out an antagonist's throat, in a fight. It was a little weird to me, but there you have it: moral relativism in "TWD."

As a screenwriting teacher once told me, "Every villain is the hero of his own story."

@CelluloidFan said:

@movie_nazi said:

@acontributor said:

I didn't say anything about erecting statues of villains from history. I said that historical monuments shouldn't be torn down because then where does it stop?

It stops when there are no more statues of villains. Granted if you want to erect a statue on your private property of whomever, go for it. Just not on public property.

What's really unclear to me about your statement is how we all define a "villain." Your idea of a hero might be my idea of a villain, and vice versa.

EDIT: I'll try to explain what I'm getting at up above. The fancy-shmancy term for the idea I'm putting forth is moral relativism.

Numerous years ago, back when a little AMC show called "The Walking Dead" was still kinda good, the makers of the show shocked viewers by killing off two fan favorites. The actor who played the guy that killed these characters onscreen explained that his brutal murders of the characters Glenn and Abraham were motivated by their taking part in killing off a bunch of his soldiers, while the soldiers were sleeping. In the actor's eyes, his character (Negan) was simply getting even with Abraham's crew.

The actor went on to awkwardly posit that maybe Abraham's friend, Rick Grimes (considered by most to be the hero of the show), could be a villain as well because he had once bitten out an antagonist's throat, in a fight. It was a little weird to me, but there you have it: moral relativism in "TWD."

As a screenwriting teacher once told me, "Every villain is the hero of his own story."

I understand but as I am sure you have heard this statement before: History is written by the winners. However, it is possible to look at the situation with complete objectivity. In the instance of the American Civil War, we have a side, so beholden to the institution of slavery, that they were willing to not only die but to send their kids to die for such a cause. They weren't fighting for freedom for all or against a violent dictator oppressor. They were fighting for the right to be able to own and sell human beings and to do with them as they pleased. Can it not be objectively decided that these people are villains? Now, do I believe these people's names should be erased from our history books? Of course not, that defeats the purpose of remembering and learning from our past mistakes which is a big part of why history is so important. Do I believe that some of these people can be recognized for their military achievements as many confederate generals were decorated service men before the war and did in fact achieve many military victories during the war that their tactics are studied world wide to this day? Absolutely. What I don't believe is that these people deserve to be honored on public property for such achievements especially when they fought to undermine the very existence of our current republic that provides such public property to this day.

It can also be argued that these statues were simply erected as a F U to the civil rights movement as if to say, "Yeah, ok. You may have won the right to be treated as equals in our society but oh how we long for the days when you were my property" . The reason I say this is because the majority of these statues were erected after the civil rights movement. If they were there to truly honor their military prowess or whatever "honor" was to be bestowed upon them, they would have been put up a few years after the war. People say we shouldn't forget our history. Well, we shouldn't forget that many people died in service to stop these "villains" on the side of the Union and it is frankly a spit in the face of those soldiers and the families that suffered the losses of them. Erect those statues in the Confederate States of America ( oh that's right, it doesn't exist).

@mechajutaro said:

It can also be argued that these statues were simply erected as a F U to the civil rights movement as if to say, "Yeah, ok. You may have won the right to be treated as equals in our society but oh how we long for the days when you were my property" . The reason I say this is because the majority of these statues were erected after the civil rights movement.

Really? Which ones? For the record, I'm of Stephen Fry's mind on this subjects.... Let's keep the statues of Confederate slave holding criminals up, for the express purpose of throwing eggs at them

Actually, the majority of them went up during the heyday of the KKK which was in the 1910's but there was a resurgence during the civil rights movement:

https://twitter.com/Randall_Stps/status/1441320958636085251/photo/1

Stephen Fry's idea actually is a good argument for keeping them up.

@movie_nazi said:

@CelluloidFan said:

@movie_nazi said:

@acontributor said:

I didn't say anything about erecting statues of villains from history. I said that historical monuments shouldn't be torn down because then where does it stop?

It stops when there are no more statues of villains. Granted if you want to erect a statue on your private property of whomever, go for it. Just not on public property.

What's really unclear to me about your statement is how we all define a "villain." Your idea of a hero might be my idea of a villain, and vice versa.

EDIT: I'll try to explain what I'm getting at up above. The fancy-shmancy term for the idea I'm putting forth is moral relativism.

Numerous years ago, back when a little AMC show called "The Walking Dead" was still kinda good, the makers of the show shocked viewers by killing off two fan favorites. The actor who played the guy that killed these characters onscreen explained that his brutal murders of the characters Glenn and Abraham were motivated by their taking part in killing off a bunch of his soldiers, while the soldiers were sleeping. In the actor's eyes, his character (Negan) was simply getting even with Abraham's crew.

The actor went on to awkwardly posit that maybe Abraham's friend, Rick Grimes (considered by most to be the hero of the show), could be a villain as well because he had once bitten out an antagonist's throat, in a fight. It was a little weird to me, but there you have it: moral relativism in "TWD."

As a screenwriting teacher once told me, "Every villain is the hero of his own story."

I understand but as I am sure you have heard this statement before: History is written by the winners. However, it is possible to look at the situation with complete objectivity. In the instance of the American Civil War, we have a side, so beholden to the institution of slavery, that they were willing to not only die but to send their kids to die for such a cause. They weren't fighting for freedom for all or against a violent dictator oppressor. They were fighting for the right to be able to own and sell human beings and to do with them as they pleased. Can it not be objectively decided that these people are villains? Now, do I believe these people's names should be erased from our history books? Of course not, that defeats the purpose of remembering and learning from our past mistakes which is a big part of why history is so important. Do I believe that some of these people can be recognized for their military achievements as many confederate generals were decorated service men before the war and did in fact achieve many military victories during the war that their tactics are studied world wide to this day? Absolutely. What I don't believe is that these people deserve to be honored on public property for such achievements especially when they fought to undermine the very existence of our current republic that provides such public property to this day.

It can also be argued that these statues were simply erected as a F U to the civil rights movement as if to say, "Yeah, ok. You may have won the right to be treated as equals in our society but oh how we long for the days when you were my property" . The reason I say this is because the majority of these statues were erected after the civil rights movement. If they were there to truly honor their military prowess or whatever "honor" was to be bestowed upon them, they would have been put up a few years after the war. People say we shouldn't forget our history. Well, we shouldn't forget that many people died in service to stop these "villains" on the side of the Union and it is frankly a spit in the face of those soldiers and the families that suffered the losses of them. Erect those statues in the Confederate States of America ( oh that's right, it doesn't exist).

movie nazi: Of course your feelings are rightly yours on this subject. You made some good points. One of my philosophies is this: I try not to confuse justice with my own comfort. That’s how I reconcile myself with American civil war statues and many other unpleasant aspects of culture that we are hit with on a daily basis.

It’s a tricky way to live, but that’s a motto of mine. Personal comfort can be a rather easy state to attain, whereas justice seems a partly intangible state that, to quote a certain journalist I once interviewed, we may not have seen correctly produced.

movie nazi: Of course your feelings are rightly yours on this subject. You made some good points. One of my philosophies is this: I try not to confuse justice with my own comfort. That’s how I reconcile myself with American civil war statues and many other unpleasant aspects of culture that we are hit with on a daily basis.

It’s a tricky way to live, but that’s a motto of mine. Personal comfort can be a rather easy state to attain, whereas justice seems a partly intangible state that, to quote a certain journalist I once interviewed, we may not have seen correctly produced.

I see where you are coming from. I went for years just completely oblivious of these statues and not really putting much thought one way or another about them. They really aren't hurting anyone and if someone wants to live in the past and pay tribute to these "heroes", then so be it. But the older I got and the more I thought about what a great country should value the more I grew resentful of them. I thought about how I was never taught in school about the Tulsa massacre but I was taught about the Watts riots. I was taught what a wonderful pioneer Christopher Columbus was but was never taught the atrocities he committed to the Taino people, the indigenous population of Puerto Rico of which I am half of. So to be taught half truths and then to add insult to injury I see we are honoring people who tried to destroy this great country, well, it kinda burns my biscuits, as they say here in the south.

That's cool, mn.

@forsakeme4all said:

I really think people need to get off the racial high horse about this movie and see that it is a fantastic movie with excellent music and stories. Not a lot of people realise that the movie itself is placed after the civil war and none of the characters in the movie were "slaves". There are way worse things for people watch these days and I think this movie needs to released again so people can enjoy it.

I agree, 100%.

I didn't read this entire thread (so forgive if its been mentioned), but I did a "Peter Pan" movie binge over a few days (Pan, Peter Pan '53, Peter Pan '03 & Hook in that order) and when I watched PP on Disney+ it came with a warning similar to this:

_This program includes negative depictions and/or mistreatment of people or cultures, these stereotypes were wrong then and are wrong now.

Rather than remove the content, we want to acknowledge its harmful impact, learn from it and spark conversation to create a more inclusive future together._

BOOM! Done! PP '53 REALLY does a number with Racist potrayal of Native Americans..including Hook even saying "those redskins.." BUT D+ did that right thing, rather then cancel the films, they attached a warning that cannot be skipped. They NEED to do this with Song of the South...the bootlegs out there are "meh"!

@jorgito2001 said:

I didn't read this entire thread (so forgive if its been mentioned), but I did a "Peter Pan" movie binge over a few days (Pan, Peter Pan '53, Peter Pan '03 & Hook in that order) and when I watched PP on Disney+ it came with a warning similar to this:

_This program includes negative depictions and/or mistreatment of people or cultures, these stereotypes were wrong then and are wrong now.

Rather than remove the content, we want to acknowledge its harmful impact, learn from it and spark conversation to create a more inclusive future together._

BOOM! Done! PP '53 REALLY does a number with Racist potrayal of Native Americans..including Hook even saying "those redskins.." BUT D+ did that right thing, rather then cancel the films, they attached a warning that cannot be skipped. They NEED to do this with Song of the South...the bootlegs out there are "meh"!

The thing is Song of the South did not do anything offensive IMO. I am willing to admit that I may be ignorant of the situation and the film does indeed have something that is offensive but it is never clearly stated what the issue is. They never once referred to the black people as N words as you would hear in say The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn or go on about how the lowly blacks need the benevolence of the highly white man to survive. The only thing I can can possibly think that may be considered offensive is that the animals that are depicted in the story that Uncle Remus tells speak with what would be considered a Black American southern accent and they are depicted as corn pone ignoramuses. But even that is a stretch. The one thing that may in fact be the offending scene is the tar baby which I have heard that term used as insult to refer to black children but that term was bore out of the film and not the other way around I am certain.

Ah yes, the tar baby. I remember a professor explaining it at university to me and numerous, amused young white people. It's sticky, so you have to avoid it -- once you touch it, that's supposedly it for you. The more you punch and kick it, you see, the harder you fight the tar baby, the more you get stuck in it... until finally, you are one with the tar baby.

I believe the tar baby may be the creature that I was referring to on the upper left poster for the film.