What President Johnson and Dr. King said!

FRIDAY, JANUARY 23, 2015

Everybody can serve:
We’re driving to Durham today to attend a school-wide spelling bee.

We know a third-grader who’s still in the hunt. She has a superb disposition, and she’s third-grade champ to boot.

On Wednesday, we decided to look at President Johnson’s now-famous speech in support of The Voting Rights Act. For its full text, click here.

Johnson wasn’t a good public speaker. That said, we were struck by an autobiographical chunk of the speech which came right near its end:
JOHNSON (3/15/65): People cannot contribute to the nation if they are never taught to read or write, if their bodies are stunted from hunger, if their sickness goes untended, if their life is spent in hopeless poverty just drawing a welfare check.

So we want to open the gates to opportunity. But we are also going to give all our people, black and white, the help that they need to walk through those gates.

My first job after college was as a teacher in Cotulla, Texas, in a small Mexican-American school. Few of them could speak English, and I couldn't speak much Spanish.

My students were poor and they often came to class without breakfast, hungry. They knew even in their youth the pain of prejudice. They never seemed to know why people disliked them. But they knew it was so, because I saw it in their eyes.

I often walked home late in the afternoon, after the classes were finished, wishing there was more that I could do. But all I knew was to teach them the little that I knew, hoping that it might help them against the hardships that lay ahead.

Somehow you never forget what poverty and hatred can do when you see its scars on the hopeful face of a young child.

I never thought then, in 1928, that I would be standing here in 1965. It never even occurred to me, in my fondest dreams, that I might have the chance to help the sons and daughters of those students and to help people like them all over this country.

But now I do have that chance, and I'll let you in on a secret:

I mean to use it.
“I mean to use it!”

To watch Johnson's speech, just click here. The segment about Cotulla starts at 37:15.

What was Johnson “really like?” We have no idea. But that’s about as good a chunk of a speech as we’ve seen or heard.

Three years later, Dr. King spoke to a somewhat similar situation.

Dr. King worked among many people who hadn’t been given the opportunities which were standard elsewhere in his society. But he knew a deeper secret about the “average” people who powered the morally brilliant movement he helped lead.

No one ever served more than Dr. King did. To our ear, this is one of the most insightful things he ever said:
KING (2/4/68): Everybody can be great. Because everybody can serve.

You don't have to have a college degree to serve. You don't have to make your subject and your verb agree to serve. You don't have to know about Plato and Aristotle to serve. You don't have to know Einstein's theory of relativity to serve. You don't have to know the second theory of thermodynamics in physics to serve.

You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love.
Dr. King was big on dispensing with hate. Did Lyndon Johnson serve?

77 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. I'm sure Somerby was planning on driving to Durham 100 mph in reverse until you said that.

      Delete
    2. Man, you a idiot.

      Delete
    3. Have a nice weekend, 12:08 & 12;30.

      Delete
    4. I wonder why he is not taking the train. I like it when he goes by Amtrak. I have more confidence he will be safe.

      Delete
    5. If you are going to visit a third grader it is better that you have your own car.

      Delete
    6. I hope Bob will report on the spelling bee outcome.

      Delete
    7. I think kids should have their privacy protected. It is enough to participate without having your efforts broadcast to the world.

      Delete
  2. "We’re driving to Durham today to attend a school-wide spelling bee.

    We know a third-grader who’s still in the hunt. She has a superb disposition, and she’s third-grade champ to boot."

    I assume this is a relative

    -- otherwise, CREEEEEPY ....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why can't adults and children be friends? It is sad that our preoccupation with abuse prevents cross-generational mentoring, as in Akilah and the Bee.

      Delete
    2. - The word is "pedophile."

      - Could you use that in a sentence for me?

      - Of course: "If your first thought upon hearing an adult mention a child is that the adult might be a pedophile, then you've got psychological problems of your own.

      - Thank you. Pedophile. P-e-d-o-p-h-i-l-e. Pedophile.

      - That is correct.

      Delete
    3. Only creepy to a certain segment of progressives whose minds go "there" when they read something normal people thought was cute. Your impulse to type something about child sexual abuse in response to an innocent comment is what is creepy and suspect.

      Delete
    4. Are you calling majneb a member of a certain segment of progressivism? That would suggest you are part of a creepy segment of newbie commenter, trolls.

      Delete
    5. Perhaps it is time to move to a discussion of Woody Allen films.

      Looks like we will have all weekend. Unless everyone wants to talk about that NYT editorial on the Ferguson school board Somerby never had time to get back to.

      Delete
    6. Wow, majneb gets major results!!

      Just not the results majneb thought majneb would get.

      C'mon, people, it's open-line Friday ...

      Delete
    7. 1:32 - project much?

      Delete
  3. I liked Johnson's speech. The first time I ever saw any of it was in Ava DuVernay’s new film, Selma, which has received an Oscar nomination as the year’s Best Picture.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you sure you saw it in the movie? Bob never mentioned it was in the movie.

      Delete
    2. Selma is more than fair to LBJ.

      http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson

      Delete
    3. Bill Moyers says that the film has LBJ behind Hoover sending taped material about King to Mrs. King. I assume this is true.
      Amy Davidson completely ignores this. So her's is a deeply stupid and dishonest article.

      Delete
    4. It was the Kennedys that initiated the surveillance against King. RFK in particular. And the Kennedy brothers loved to joke around about the hilarious hijinks in the many orgies they taped King participating in. Who knows what JFK told his wife about King's predilections, but whatever it was Jackie admitted she couldn't stand the man.

      Delete
    5. "More than fair to." Good lord.

      Delete
    6. More bottom feeding by Benny the Racist Scumbag.

      Delete
    7. "Many orgies they taped".... it took years for Hoover to catch King in an indiscretion, and as repugnant as Robert Kennedy's order was, he never suggested the tapes be used to torment Mrs. King.

      Delete
    8. They had to figure out a way to deflect the sleaze of MLK orgies away from MLK so decided to invent an even worse action and pin it on LBJ. MLK was deeply flawed.

      Delete
    9. Two questions:

      1) Wouldn't it have been easier to just leave King's sex life out of the film?

      2) What action was invented?

      Delete
    10. LBJ did not instruct Hoover to wiretap King and he did not give the info to MLK's wife or tell Hoover to do so. None of that is true and that is what is invented. It is a smear against LBJ to suggest he did any of that. Hoover was a despicable, out-of-control person who did whatever he wanted because he had the ability to persecute and blackmail important figures in and out of the government. That is well known by anyone who follows history.

      Why leave King's sex life out of the film when the whole business can be used to smear LBJ, a white person who otherwise was important in advancing civil rights efforts? Your question is valid but the answer to it does not reflect well on this film or the director's intentions.

      Delete
    11. You obviously did not see the film.

      The action, Hoover having FBI agents tape King and the tapes being given to his wife, was not invented. The involvement of LBJ in that action was invented.

      Delete
    12. Right, that's what I said. I didn't say those things never happened. I said attributing them to LBJ was wrong. Hoover was targeting MLK and everyone else from Presidents to movie stars to college kids. He had something on everyone and no one was willing to tell him to stop. Fortunately, he eventually died. Now we have to ask what the CIA and FBI have on our current leaders. Did anyone notice that Obama left the intelligence sector entirely untouched during the transition from Bush to his own administration? Why do you think that was?

      Delete
  4. Selma Still on My Mind

    In the debate over who gets credit for the Voting Rights Act and Selma: MLK, who wasn't even therefor the brutal march, or LBJ, whose idea it was according to knowledgeable sources, Bob Somerby has proven we should not blame the important members of the Academy for the lack of Oscars for the film about those days.

    He has shown by the numbers since 2005 how many Oscar nods have gone to people of color and even people whose color cannot be determined. But like those lazy, dumb, and dislikeable liberals who overlook or disappear Johnson's role, he himself overlooked those whose brave protests a decade earlier helped make those numbers possible.


    "Jackson Plans Oscar Protest

    Hollywood: Activist is angered by almost complete absence of black nominees this year. Official denies charges that academy discriminates against African Americans.

    March 17, 1996|GREG BRAXTON | TIMES STAFF WRITER

    The Rev. Jesse Jackson, angered by the almost total absence of African American Oscar nominees, will come to Los Angeles next week to organize a protest against the Academy Awards and call attention to what he labeled institutional racism in the Hollywood film industry."

    http://articles.latimes.com/1996-03-17/local/me-48073_1_jesse-jackson

    Yes, Bob, a decade of progress can be shown lately, but what about the brutal history of an industry which lauded "Birth of a Nation," an historically inaccurate picture of our nation's own brutal history? And what about those who served to fight that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I always thought the importance of "Birth of A Nation" was the invention of editing back and forth from one event to another, the now indispensable "Meanwhile, back at the ranch" technique.

      Delete
    2. Wikipedia says:

      ***QUOTE*** The notion of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) began with Louis B. Mayer, head of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM). He wanted to create an organization that would mediate labor disputes and improve the industry’s image. So, on a Sunday evening, Mayer and three other studio big-wigs - actor Conrad Nagel, director Fred Niblo, and the head of the Association of Motion Picture Producers, Fred Beetson - sat down and discussed these matters. The idea of this elite club having an annual banquet was tossed around, but there was no mention of awards just yet. They also established that membership into the organization would only be open to people involved in one of the five branches of the industry: actors, directors, writers, technicians, and producers.

      After their brief meeting, Mayer gathered up a group of thirty-six people involved in the film industry and invited them to a formal banquet at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles on January 11, 1927. That evening Mayer presented to those guests what he called the International Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and it was open to those who had contributed to the motion picture industry.


      ...One of several committees formed in those initial days was for "Awards of Merit", but it was not until a year later, in May 1928, that the committee began to have serious discussions about the structure of the awards and the presentation ceremony. By July 1928, they had presented to, and been approved by, the Board of Directors a list of 12 awards to be presented. During July the voting system for the Awards was established, and the nomination and selection process began. This "award of merit for distinctive achievement" is what we know now as the Academy Award.***END QUOTE***

      PBS says:

      ***QUOTE*** On the evening of March 21, 1915, President Woodrow Wilson attended a special screening at the White House of THE BIRTH OF A NATION, a film directed by D.W. Griffith and based on THE CLANSMAN, a novel written by Wilson's good friend Thomas Dixon. The film presented a distorted portrait of the South after the Civil War, glorifying the Ku Klux Klan and denigrating blacks. It falsified the period of Reconstruction by presenting blacks as dominating Southern whites (almost all of whom are noble in the film) and sexually forcing themselves upon white women. The Klan was portrayed as the South's savior from this alleged tyranny. Not only was this portrayal untrue, it was the opposite of what actually happened. During Reconstruction, whites dominated blacks and assaulted black women. The Klan was primarily a white terrorist organization that carried out hundreds of murders.

      The film falsified the reality of Reconstruction by presenting blacks as trying to dominate Southern whites and sexually force themselves upon white women. After seeing the film, an enthusiastic Wilson reportedly remarked: "It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true." African-American audiences openly wept at the film's malicious portrayal of blacks, while Northern white audiences cheered. The film swept the nation. Riots broke out in major cities (Boston and Philadelphia, among others), and it was denied release in many other places (Chicago, Ohio, Denver, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and Minneapolis). Gangs of whites roamed city streets attacking blacks. In Lafayette, Indiana, a white man killed a black teenager after seeing the movie. Thomas Dixon reveled in its triumph. "The real purpose of my film," he confessed gleefully, "was to revolutionize Northern audiences that would transform every man into a Southern partisan for life." ***END QUOTE***

      Delete
    3. So, is your point that today's academy is flawed because of its past, that movies made for political purposes are bad, that D.W.Griffith was as racist as Dixon (both of whom were in step with their times), or what? You cannot seriously be arguing that because Birth of a Nation falsified, it is OK for modern films to do so too. I also don't think a movie is responsible for the acts of rioters, else we couldn't hold the middle Eastern terrorists responsible for Benghazi.

      Do you think anyone thinks Birth of a Nation was truthful? Although, I would quibble that portraying one black person committing rape isn't saying that all black people commit rape. I have seen the film, perhaps not in its original version, and the racial part is not the main point -- the rape of the South is. Further, denying that there was not any lawlessness during Reconstruction among the displaced former slaves without means of support and without any help finding new lives would be false too. I don't argue the Klan was necessary or justified, but it didn't emerge in a vacuum either. Given the human propensity for revenge, what do you think actually happened after the Northern troops left the South? Or are you someone who denies there was looting in and around Ferguson after the verdict was announced?

      Delete
    4. Anonymous @ 3:47pm writes:

      ***I don't argue the Klan was necessary or justified, but it didn't emerge in a vacuum either.***

      Actually, the Klan did emerge from a vacuum, a vacuum left by the defeat of South. See, for instance, this summary of the situation that prevailed in Alabama from Douglas Blackmon's Slavery by Another Name (2008):

      ***[p. 36] A few months after the surrender of the Confederacy, the U. S. government sold the wrecked ironworks of Brierfield to the man who during the war had been responsible for arming the entire southern military, Josiah Gorgas, the architect of the slave-driven Alabama wartime industrial complex. Gorgas, a Pennsylvania native, who married the daughter of a former Alabama governor, had become a committed Confederate, rising to the rank of general by war's end. After the surrender, he worked tirelessly to return the furnaces to full use and profitability.

      But the ravaged state of Alabama that surrounded him made that plan nearly impossible. The cost of paying market rate wages to black men such as Scip
      [io Cottinham] who had worked as slaves during the war totaled a bankrupting $200 per day. Those black laborers Gorgas could pay and keep on hand were repeatedly harassed by marauding bands of Ku Klux Klan members. Gorgas, like Elisha Cottingham and so many other whites bewildered by the ramifications of black emancipation and the continuing venality of renegade whites, was disconsolate. The South they dreamed of making an independent republic grounded in slavery- and then dreamed of building as a rival to the North -appeared irretrievably broken....***

      Wikipedia has a summary that suggests it wasn't a bunch of shiftless blacks along and fellow traveling white malingerers assaulting Ms. Scarlett in her buckboard which gave rise to the Klan:

      ***The first Klan was founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee, by six veterans of the Confederate Army. The name is probably derived from the Greek word kuklos (κύκλος) which means circle.

      Although there was little organizational structure above the local level, similar groups rose across the South and adopted the same name and methods. Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement during the Reconstruction era in the United States. As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans.

      In 1870 and 1871, the federal government passed the Force Acts, which were used to prosecute Klan crimes. Prosecution of Klan crimes and enforcement of the Force Acts suppressed Klan activity. In 1874 and later, newly organized and openly active paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and the Red Shirts, started a fresh round of violence aimed at suppressing blacks' voting and running Republicans out of office. These contributed to segregationist white Democrats regaining political power in all the Southern states by 1877.
      ***

      @ 3:47pm, there just isn't any two sides to this story.

      Delete
    5. The definitive book on reconstruction is Foner's "Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution 1863-1877." It describes how large numbers of freed slaves wandered the land refusing to work or marry or adhere to laws. Like the white renegades, they formed a group that insisted that freedom meant freedom to be idle, giving rise to vagrancy laws. Paid workers were expected to have a work ethic and responsibility not expected of slaves. Freedmen demanded higher wages and shorter hours than were paid to other workers and organized strikes disrupting labor. Freed slaves did not behave like free workers and did not readily fit into the economy or social structure. The difficulties of adjustment were felt by white and black people, so yes, there are two sides to the aftermath of the civil war. The klan was bad but so were some actions of former slaves. The federal response was inadequate.

      Delete
    6. Bull manure @ 8:59 PM. I don't have my old copy of the book around to quote from but Foner, of all people, makes no such claims. If this approach doesn't offend you, here's an Amazon review by someone trying to be honest about what Foner wrote (though, if I remember correctly, I think the commenters are correct to pick one bone with it):

      ***QUOTE Eric Foner breaks no new ground with this book. The demolition of the traditional portrayal of Reconstruction as a period of unmitigated evil and injustice, where rapacious and corrupt Northerners joined with incompetent black Southerners to deny virtuous white Southerners of their rightful place in government, began as early as 1909; with a paper presented by WEB DuBois at Columbia University. The demolition was largely completed by Kenneth Stampp's 1965 book about Reconstruction, and it would be difficult to find a reputable scholar today who would disagree with the general premise of revisionist scholarship about Reconstruction: that while Reconstruction state governments and the Republican Congress were very much creatures of their time, they accomplished much that was good and noble, and that the criticisms of them by the Redeemers and their sympathizers in the academic community were frequently unjust and based on bald racial prejudice.

      Instead of breaking new ground [sic], Foner's book does an admirable job consolidating the revisionist consensus. With his emphasis on the role that the former slaves themselves played in Reconstruction, he emphatically rejects the notion, sometimes present even in revisionist scholarship, that somehow whites... were the only agents in Reconstruction. Likewise, he presents a nuanced portrayal of the Republican coalition in Congress that enacted the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875, the Reconstruction Acts, the Enforcement Acts, and the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871: they were not monolithic Radicals, nor were the Radicals among them monolithic in their goals and ideals. Finally, he does an admirable job of replacing Reconstruction in the social, economic, and global context that so many accounts have managed to remove it from. END QUOTE***

      For his later and quicker treatment of the subject see Foner's The Story of American Freedom.

      For anyone who has a sincere interest in the subject and what Foner has to say about it, this looks like it's going to be quite worthwhile.

      Delete
    7. Thanks for this information, CMike.

      Delete
  5. So majneb, it is open line Friday?

    Where do you stand? Better:

    LBJ or MLK?

    "Blue Crush" or "Blue Lagoon"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LBJ and Blue Lagoon all the way. Medicare and nubile Brooke Shields FTW.

      Delete
    2. Bet you were sad when mullets went out of style.

      Delete
    3. Mullets are out of style?

      Delete
  6. Regardless of their accomplishments, both Johnson and King launched a sea change in the sixties that can be directly linked to the collapse of our intellectual culture.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those accomplishments were made possible by excellent gate keepers. Hippie freedoms and the welfare state caused elimination of the gaps to slow and liberals to become tribal.

      Delete
    2. In the 60s there was a deep divide between hippies and political activists without much overlap between the two groups. The political types were engaged in social change. The hippies were engaged in dropping out and seeking pleasure. You can argue that hippies changed things simply by being different, but the activists were the ones who pushed the boundaries via demonstrations, lawsuits, and support for progressive candidates. Hippies didn't vote. They didn't advocate for freedoms -- they just took them. If anything, they were the forerunners of the drug culture that destroyed black and white youth, evolving into heroin, cocaine, meth and ecstasy abuse, and today prescription painkiller abuse (which leads back to heroin again). So, I would argue that there was tribalism within the left in the 60s, just as there is tribalism on the right between the tea partiers, the Libertarians and the Christian fundamentalists.

      Delete
  7. Why the pretentious "Dr." title for Rev. King?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It isn't just race. We don't talk about "Dr." Sowell, although his Ph. D. (U of Chicago, Economics) is more impressive than MLK's.

      Delete
    2. Yeah. PhDs in systemic theology from Boston University after the dissertation, "A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Henry Nelson Wieman" must be a dime a dozen.

      Delete
    3. Apparently they do exist since Boston University ruled in 1989 that Dr. King was found to have appropriated and plagiarized major portions of his dissertation from works on the same topic by other authors.

      Delete
    4. Nice try, but false. Boston U. did not find the issues serious enough to revoke his doctorate.

      And this is what The Daily Howler is adding to the American discourse. Another place for liars to peddle their wares.

      Delete
    5. Saying the issues weren't serious enough to revoke his doctorate is not the same as saying he didn't plagiarize.

      Delete
    6. D in C, Sowell is a rightwing hack, I don't know how you compare himto MLK

      Delete
    7. AC/MA -- Don't assume someone is a hack just because he disagrees with you politically. You ought to learn that highly intelligent, educated people may hold views different from yours. There are plenty of smart, capable people on the left and on the right (and plenty not so smart.) There have been even smart, capable segregationists and Nazis and Islamic terrorists.

      Delete
    8. Above comment was from David in Cal

      Delete
    9. I agreed with the comment of @ 11:33 until it was revealed a minute later some old hack wrote it.

      Delete
    10. I think Hannah Arendt said that about Eichmann.

      Delete
    11. D in C, i say he is a hack based on looking at some of his newspaper columns, replete with hackneyed, mindless right wing talking points, not because I disagree withhim politically. Admittedly, a small sample. I even think you make intelligent points sometimes, albeit rarely

      Delete
    12. AC/MA -- I don't think Sowell's columns are particularly outstanding. His books are outstanding as well as numerous. He has written wisely on a broad variety of subjects. If you ever want to understand economics from a conservative POV, his Basic Economics is a great read. I was particularly impressed by his writings on affirmative action, based on actual research of how this practice has worked when tried in other countries and with other favored groups.

      You can get lots of opinions pulled out of one's a$$. (I ought to know!) But, it's rare to get opinions based on broad studies of actual results.

      Delete
  8. I went to the movies today. Birdman is a wonderful film, 100 times better than Selma. Keaton should win best actor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Old white washed up actor plays washed up actor. Smells like Oscar to me.

      Delete
    2. Old white washed up actor plays washed up actor. Smells like Oscar to me.

      Delete
    3. You wouldn't characterize it this way if you had seen the movie. Unlike Selma, everything about this film is innovative and unlike Selma, it knows how to create suspense. Selma made an inherently compelling topic dull. I suppose that is quite a feat for a director, but not in a good way.

      Delete
  9. A few days ago Larry Wilmore said that he voted for Obama because he is black, not because of his policies. I think many black people assume that white people do the same, nominate white actors and directors because they are white. They do not understand that race is less important for those in a racial majority. This is consistent with the parenting study that found that black parents explicitly discuss race with their kids whereas white parents do so much less often. Black people use race as an explanatory construct or frame more than white people do. I think that is why black people are convinced the nominations were biased while it is unlikely they were based on race.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In our view, your comment is based on race.

      Delete
    2. What would happen if 12% of the members of the Academy were black? Would they all then vote for black actors and directors and films about black experience? If so, that still would not result in those films and actors being nominated, because those voters would be 12% of the whole.

      To be effective at promoting black nominees, they would have to be closer to 50% of the voters in the academy. But, they would then be disproportionate and some other minority group would not be represented in the academy.

      How are black films and actors ever nominated when the Academy is full of nothing but old white men? Those old white men must be voting for them. So then, why would they vote for black films and actors sometimes and not other times? Perhaps it is because they do vote on the basis of the acting and directing merits and not because films and actors are white, and perhaps sometimes those black films and actors are excellent, attracting the votes of white members of the Academy, not solely black ones.

      If black people were represented in the Academy at 50% or higher and they always voted for black films and actors, how would an excellent performance by someone of a different race ever be recognized?

      Here's a revolutionary idea -- perhaps members of the Academy should be voting for films and actors on the basis of something other than race! Perhaps they already are!! Given that black people are winning awards, what is the evidence that race is the determining factor in the Oscar nominations?

      Delete
    3. It our view we will call you when we want holes dug deeper.

      Delete
    4. You don't seem to have any view that you are willing to express. Typical troll.

      Delete
  10. In Entertainment Weekly, DuVernay claims she knew she wouldn't be nominated because she doesn't know any of the 6000 voters of the Academy (since they are all old, white men). Does she imagine that Alejandro Inarritu (director of Birdman) knows everyone in Hollywood (or that he did when directing Amores Perros or Babel)? Alfre Woodard is quoted as saying "Oh, my, did we miss it this year...But people can vote for whatever they want, and half of the things I voted for weren't recognized. I'm used to that. I live in America -- and I'm a woman of color."

    DuVernay herself connected her film to the protests in Ferguson and over Garner. EW says: "This seemed to rankle some Academy voters, as if DuVernay, the media and the film's campaign were all saying 'If you don't vote for Selma, you're not taking a stand.' 'It's almost like because she is African-American, we should have made her one of the nominees,' says one member. 'I think that's racist. Look at what we did last year with 12 years.'"

    So, it sounds like Academy voters are resistant to making the nominations a matter of race instead of accomplishment whereas black members look mainly at race, count how many people 'of color' are represented and nominated, and tally up votes for their group versus others, voting for black people because they are black.

    DuVernay made her film and her Oscar campaign about race. The Academy doesn't see it that way. Personally, I don't think the way to deal with racism is to be racist by selecting black films and actors whenever they are matched against white people, based on their race. I think Birdman will follow up its Producer's Guild and SAG sweeps by winning big at the Oscars, as it deserves to, and none of the other nominees will claim it is because he knew everyone who voted or was a member of the old, white man's club. They will appreciate that it is a genuinely innovative and amazing film. This is something DuVernay might recognize if she were not focused on only seeing what reflects black experience, black women, and black causes. It is, after all, about art and how one accomplishes it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In a Daily Howler comment you added things on your own to an Entertainment Weekly article to make is seem as if DeVernay said things about people that she did not. White commenters like you look mainly at race, assume black people think alike, and believe you are capable of mind reading.

      Personally I don't think the way to deal with you is to call you a racist, because underlying whatever motivates your animus against and focus on attacking black people is pure unadulterated stupidity. That can befall people of any race and lead to any number of unfortunate behaviors.

      Delete
    2. Entertainment Weekly January 21, 2015

      ***QUOTE*** Ava DuVernay knew last month she wasn’t going to be nominated for an Oscar.

      She knew it before the controversy began over how President Lyndon B. Johnson is depicted in her movie, Selma, and before screening copies failed to reach Academy members until late in December, hobbling the film’s awards hopes. She knew it before the Screen Actors Guild, the Directors Guild, and Producers Guild awards all declined to nominate the movie in any category. Despite widespread critical praise for her film, DuVernay predicted that she would not be the first black woman to land a directing nod.

      “It would be lovely,” she told EW over lunch in L.A. on Dec. 18. “When it happens to whomever it happens to, it will certainly have meaning.” But it would not be her. “This is not me being humble, either,” she said. “It’s math.”

      While all 6,000-plus members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences vote on who wins an Oscar, the nominations are determined only by Academy members in the appropriate profession. Actors nominate actors. Directors nominate directors. The directors’ branch of the Academy is, quite literally, a boys’ club.

      According to a 2012 study by the Los Angeles Times, the directors’ branch is 91 percent male, and 90 percent white. That alone wouldn’t prevent a DuVernay nomination, of course, but her lack of personal and professional connections with those directors would, she thought. “I know not one person in my branch,” she said....
      ***END QUOTE***

      I was wondering why @9:26 AM didn't provide a link, this being my first rodeo and all.

      Delete
    3. Since it is your first rodeo you might not have noticed that on an earlier comment thread to a previous post, I linked both the Entertainment Weekly article and the Los Angeles Times study EW mentions. Both helped demonstrate that
      reorter Cara Buckley, the one who drove Bob Somerby's imaginary friends to tears, was accurate.

      What is interesting is that it was the reporter for EW in 2015, not director DuVerany, who interjected the race and gender of the Academy into the conversation, and referenced the article in the Times from 2012. The latter fact is not surprising. She was one of the co-authors of that LA Times article.

      I wonder what the wage gap is between female and male directors of Hollywood films.

      Delete
    4. Mega Dittos @ 9:26.

      Shame on DuVernay for making her film about race. Selma was dramatic enough without dropping the R bomb.

      Delete
    5. January 27 @ 9:32 AM, you write:

      What is interesting is that it was the reporter for EW in 2015, not director DuVerany, who interjected the race and gender of the Academy into the conversation, and referenced the article in the Times from 2012.

      Hope January 26 @ 9:26 AM sees that part of your comment. It will clarify for them what they were reading.

      Delete