# Doper Historians - Film "Selma" portays LBJ as enemy of civil rights & MLK - Any basis for this? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 7, 2015, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doper-historians-film-selma-portays-lbj-as-enemy-of-civil-rights-mlk-any-basis-for-this/709201 "2015-01-07T08:11:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doper-historians-film-selma-portays-lbj-as-enemy-of-civil-rights-mlk-any-basis-for-this/709201/81 "2015-01-13T23:38:02Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Assume if you like. This has all the hallmarks of a lazy attribution - a name and a date, no actual source. By using a standard for accepting cites that exceeds that typically used on this board, you reveal your own biases. But anyway, [here](http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/White%20Materials/Watergate/Watergate%20Items%2020229%20to%2020569/Watergate%2020263.pdf) is the source. I expect you will continue to look for reasons to discount this evidence too, but I’m actually posting this for the truly curious. > [@](#): > > Please quote one place where I “flat out denied” this. You expressed doubt that he knew about the wiretapping, you expressed ignorance that JEH and LBJ were chums, and you’ve suggested that the POTUS couldn’t do anything about Hoover because “he knew too much”. In other words, you’ve defended Johnson’s guilelessness using a combination of myth, speculation, and uninformed opinion. > [@](#): > > No, it isn’t the point of the article. The point of the article was that the alleged historical inaccuracy wasn’t inaccurate. You can keep saying that, but it doesn’t make it true. Your contributions to this thread though do support the author’s conclusion that critics see LBJ through a distorted lens. > [@](#): > > See highlighted portion. The obvious conclusion is that the author of the article - which is, I remind you, entitled “It’s Critics of ‘Selma’ Who Are Distorting Civil Rights History” - is that the author thinks that the critics are dead wrong: that Hoover _was_ authorized by LBJ to hound MLK with sex tapes, and that the quoted memo _proves_ it. But that isn’t what the author says, is it? For a conclusion so obvious, you’d think it would actually say this. It appears this is you making an inference–an inference that allows you to reduce the article to an argument about mere accuracy as opposed to something more substantive than that. > [@](#): > > Which gets back to my original point, which I have been saying all along - that no, it doesn’t. The author is wrong. You can’t call the author wrong by putting words in his/her mouth. That’s not how its done in Rational Land. > [@](#): > > Sure, it was gross and appalling (if it happened). Bye. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doper-historians-film-selma-portays-lbj-as-enemy-of-civil-rights-mlk-any-basis-for-this/709201/82 "2015-01-14T06:33:16Z")
[del]It sounds really weird and wrong. LBJ was pretty much the midwife of a post-racist USA. Why slander him in this way, other than simple racialism and ignorance?[/del] And again I need to read the thread. I’ve been on Tumblr, I know there are hacks who lie about media in order to bait us. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doper-historians-film-selma-portays-lbj-as-enemy-of-civil-rights-mlk-any-basis-for-this/709201/83 "2015-01-14T14:35:32Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > By using a standard for accepting cites that exceeds that typically used on this board, you reveal your own biases. > > But anyway, [here](http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/White%20Materials/Watergate/Watergate%20Items%2020229%20to%2020569/Watergate%2020263.pdf) is the source. I expect you will continue to look for reasons to discount this evidence too, but I’m actually posting this for the truly curious. No, now you have proved your point. This is a good source. However, as pointed out above, this point is irrelevant to the actual argument. > [@](#): > > You expressed doubt that he knew about the wiretapping, you expressed ignorance that JEH and LBJ were chums, and you’ve suggested that the POTUS couldn’t do anything about Hoover because “he knew too much”. In other words, you’ve defended Johnson’s guilelessness using a combination of myth, speculation, and uninformed opinion. Heh, none of what I’ve actually said matches your straw-manning "I “flat out denied” this. Yet you just can’t admit you were making shit up about what I said. > [@](#): > > You can keep saying that, but it doesn’t make it true. Your contributions to this thread though do support the author’s conclusion that critics see LBJ through a distorted lens. Once again, I care nothing for LBJ. I have no emotional attachment to his legacy whatsoever. > [@](#): > > But that isn’t what the author says, is it? For a conclusion so obvious, you’d think it would actually say this. It appears this is you making an inference–an inference that allows you to reduce the article to an argument about mere accuracy as opposed to something more substantive than that. The article makes several arguments. One is about the accuracy of the movie. This argument is wrong (or at least, not actually supported by the evidence the article itself provides). Why is this so difficult for you? You don’t actually contend that the article is correct on this point. Your argument (as far as I can understand it) appears to be (correct me if I am wrong) that the inaccuracy is minor and blown out of proportion. This, I would say, is a matter of opinion - on which reasonable people could disagree. Whether the article is incorrect and the movie in fact contains a significant inaccuracy is a matter of fact. I have said exactly nothing about your _opinions_, but I am contesting only the _facts_. > [@](#): > > You can’t call the author wrong by putting words in his/her mouth. That’s not how its done in Rational Land. If you are arguing that the author of the article isn’t claiming the movie is accurate on this point, I’m afraid we have to part ways. That position is not credible, as anyone can read from the article itself. > [@](#): > > Bye. _That_ is what pissed you off? 😕 Well, now that you have, in fact, provided a good source, you can have an unqualified ‘that was gross and appalling’. Happy? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doper-historians-film-selma-portays-lbj-as-enemy-of-civil-rights-mlk-any-basis-for-this/709201/84 "2015-01-14T22:05:05Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > No, now you have proved your point. This is a good source. > > However, as pointed out above, this point is irrelevant to the actual argument. This is the thesis of the article is in bold below: > [@](#): > > Now, Selma is a work of fiction, not a documentary, as a disclaimer in the film’s credits goes out of its way to explain. Screenwriter Paul Webb and director Ava Duvernay do adjust certain historical events to tell a more powerful story; for example, the murder of the four girls in the Birmingham church happened in September 1963, not in late 1964, as the movie suggests. Such alterations are considered normal and unobjectionable in shaping history into a dramatic fictional narrative. > > Op-eds, on the other hand, are supposed to stick to the actual facts. \*\* And the ones attacking Selma do far more to distort the reality of King’s relationship with Johnson than the fictional film does.\*\* The article is NOT about whether Selma is 100% accurate. It admits upfront that, like most movies based on historical events, it uses artistic license. What its actually arguing is that those who have lambasted the movie for “beyond-the-pale” misrepresentation–with some even going so far to say it doesn’t deserves awards–are in fact more guilty of distorting LBJ’s _relationship_ with MLK than the movie is. The historical evidence it cites is attempting to show why defending LBJ’s image is wrong. Your attempt to frame the article as being more pedantic than that means you either don’t get the article’s message, or it means you’re intentionally twisting it so you can dismiss it. Kind of like the way you dismissed the Atlantic article I cited. > [@](#): > > Heh, none of what I’ve actually said matches your straw-manning "I “flat out denied” this. Yet you just can’t admit you were making shit up about what I said. Okay, I will concede you didn’t flat out denied it". Perhaps what I’m really reacting to is your dogged agnosticism towards anything that supports LBJ being less than nobel person, particularly towards MLK. This is what it comes do to. Fixating on whether RFK put the knife in MLK’s back or LBJ looks rather pedantic when there’s plenty of evidence that LBJ was okay with that knife being there and maybe even gave it a few twists for good measure. I haven’t seen you or anyone in this thread who has cried foul about _Selma_ (sight unseen, I might add) acknowledge this basic thing. We’re still stuck on “RFK did it, not LBJ!”. As I said earlier when thanking **Equipoise** for linking to the article, this reveals how superficial critics of the movie are. Unless you can show why this inaccuracy is unfair to LBJ in an ethical sense, it makes the outrage about it look like a bunch of ignorant hot air. Can you address this? Or would you rather perseverate on the RFK thing? > [@](#): > > The article makes several arguments. One is about the accuracy of the movie. I’ve posted the thesis of the article for you, okay? What is telling is that the word “accuracy” is not used once in the entire piece. Neither is “truth”. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doper-historians-film-selma-portays-lbj-as-enemy-of-civil-rights-mlk-any-basis-for-this/709201/85 "2015-01-14T22:13:51Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > If you are arguing that the author of the article isn’t claiming the movie is accurate on this point, I’m afraid we have to part ways. That position is not credible, as anyone can read from the article itself. You’re 100% right. I don’t think the author is claiming that LBJ tried to blackmail MLK using a wireless tap. The conclusion shows up nowhere in the piece; you inferred this from your idea that the author was making an argument about factual accuracy when he was really describing the complicated and sometimes contentious relationship between LBJ and MLK. And with this impasse, I’m 100% fine with parting ways. It’s one thing to argue at length about history, but ain’t nobody got time to debate reading comprehension too. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2015, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doper-historians-film-selma-portays-lbj-as-enemy-of-civil-rights-mlk-any-basis-for-this/709201/86 "2015-01-20T02:47:32Z")
I wonder if any of the people hatin’ on this movie have checked it out yet. I thought the film was quite excellent. It showed Johnson as a politician. Not “evil” (evil people don’t cuss out virulent racists), but not sanctified either. All the complaints about his portrayal have been completely overwrought. They never said his last name, but I’m assuming the hot head who spared with John Lewis was supposed to be James Farmer. Now, I thought he was painted very unfavorably, and to a lesser extent so was Hosea. (Though Hosea WAS quite a character.) Based on how James was portrayed in this film, you would have never guessed he was also the pudgy fellow portrayed in “The Great Debaters”. I thought the movie would have been a tad better if they hadn’t played up this tension. (Not that there wasn’t tension. But I don’t think John was as “okey-doke” with the MLK program as the movie made it out be). The casting was so fantastic that I could identify MLK’s crew before they were introduced ('cuz I love me some “Eyes on the Prize”). ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2015, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doper-historians-film-selma-portays-lbj-as-enemy-of-civil-rights-mlk-any-basis-for-this/709201/87 "2015-01-20T04:59:08Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > I wonder if any of the people hatin’ on this movie have checked it out yet. > > I thought the film was quite excellent. It showed Johnson as a politician. Not “evil” (evil people don’t cuss out virulent racists), but not sanctified either. All the complaints about his portrayal have been completely overwrought. I saw the movie today, and was surprised to find that Johnson was portrayed much less negatively than the controversy had led me to expect. He’s depicted as being in favor of civil rights, but explicitly says to King that he’s a politician, not an activist, and can’t focus on just one cause when he has so many other things he has to deal with too. From early in the movie it is shown that the FBI is keeping close tabs on King and his associates. We see a meeting between Hoover and Johnson where Hoover is obviously eager to disgrace King publicly, and says that if Johnson doesn’t like that idea (and he doesn’t) then the FBI could also make trouble between King and his wife. Johnson says basically that regardless of whatever dirt the FBI has on King, he’d rather have someone like King who believes in non-violence as a leader of this movement. However, after King later refuses to make a political compromise with Johnson, we see Johnson say “Get me Hoover.” Coretta Scott King soon receives an tape about King’s infidelities. So while it’s very strongly implied by the movie that Johnson told Hoover to send this tape, it is presented as having been Hoover’s idea to begin with. It was not my impression from the movie that Johnson was responsible for ordering the FBI to begin surveillance of King. He’s obviously aware that they are doing so and certainly doesn’t tell Hoover to stop, but it’s not clear that he knows that the FBI is tapping King’s phone. I did also notice that the end of the movie had a lengthy disclaimer explaining that while it is based on real events it is not a documentary, and that some of the actions of historic figures depicted in the movie are fictionalized. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2015, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doper-historians-film-selma-portays-lbj-as-enemy-of-civil-rights-mlk-any-basis-for-this/709201/88 "2015-01-20T14:08:30Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > The casting was so fantastic that I could identify MLK’s crew before they were introduced ('cuz I love me some “Eyes on the Prize”). I thought the casting was great too. The guy who played John Lewis was spot on. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2015, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doper-historians-film-selma-portays-lbj-as-enemy-of-civil-rights-mlk-any-basis-for-this/709201/89 "2015-01-20T16:59:25Z")
Eeeesh… I just saw the movie, and while I enjoyed it, LBJ really was portrayed as a villain. I was prepared to see just a nuanced view of LBJ, prioritizing other political issues, but being firmly on the side of civil rights. But no… LBJ was portrayed as trying to get MLK “in line” and sicking the FBI on him when he wasn’t. They almost made it seem that J. Edger Hoover was giving his marching orders by LBJ. And at times it seemed like LBJ was patronizing to MLK. I saw the movie in a theater that was vastly African-American and they were definitely reacting like LBJ was the villain (laughing when he stood up to George Wallace, basically saying “yeah, now you get it”). My girlfriend, who went in not knowing much about the controversy, or the extent of LBJ’s role in everything, saw him as the villain who came to his senses. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2015, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doper-historians-film-selma-portays-lbj-as-enemy-of-civil-rights-mlk-any-basis-for-this/709201/90 "2015-01-20T19:14:51Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > Eeeesh… I just saw the movie, and while I enjoyed it, LBJ really was portrayed as a villain. I was prepared to see just a nuanced view of LBJ, prioritizing other political issues, but being firmly on the side of civil rights. But no… LBJ was portrayed as trying to get MLK “in line” and sicking the FBI on him when he wasn’t. They almost made it seem that J. Edger Hoover was giving his marching orders by LBJ. And at times it seemed like LBJ was patronizing to MLK. I saw the movie in a theater that was vastly African-American and they were definitely reacting like LBJ was the villain (laughing when he stood up to George Wallace, basically saying “yeah, now you get it”). > > My girlfriend, who went in not knowing much about the controversy, or the extent of LBJ’s role in everything, saw him as the villain who came to his senses. It sounds like a terrible disservice to a man who sacrificed so much politically (both for himself and for his party) to advance the cause of civil rights. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2015, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doper-historians-film-selma-portays-lbj-as-enemy-of-civil-rights-mlk-any-basis-for-this/709201/91 "2015-01-20T19:26:58Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > LBJ was portrayed as trying to get MLK “in line” and sicking the FBI on him when he wasn’t. They almost made it seem that J. Edger Hoover was giving his marching orders by LBJ. And at times it seemed like LBJ was patronizing to MLK. This doesn’t sound far off the interpretations I’ve heard from people who were around then and following the principals. The last sentence is assuredly accurate. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2015, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doper-historians-film-selma-portays-lbj-as-enemy-of-civil-rights-mlk-any-basis-for-this/709201/92 "2015-01-20T19:40:54Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > The last sentence is assuredly accurate. To be clear, I mean that I have heard people who were in the movement say that the real Johnson _seemed_ that way to them, then, as well. I have not yet seen the film, so I can’t speak to the depiction. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2015, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doper-historians-film-selma-portays-lbj-as-enemy-of-civil-rights-mlk-any-basis-for-this/709201/93 "2015-01-20T20:57:49Z")
> [@Spoke](#): > > It sounds like a terrible disservice to a man who sacrificed so much politically (both for himself and for his party) to advance the cause of civil rights. I’m curious why you’re choosing to take **ISiddiqui’s** take on it, but not anyone’s. If LBJ had been gung-ho for the Voting Right’s Act, there wouldn’t have been a need to stage any protests. MLK wouldn’t have needed to meet with LBJ. The FBI wouldn’t have stalked MLK. I have always felt like LBJ was one of the best US presidents we’ve ever had. The movie hasn’t changed this opinion one bit. Go see the movie before you decide it’s a disservice. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2015, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doper-historians-film-selma-portays-lbj-as-enemy-of-civil-rights-mlk-any-basis-for-this/709201/94 "2015-01-20T21:30:26Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > This doesn’t sound far off the interpretations I’ve heard from people who were around then and following the principals. The last sentence is assuredly accurate. Here is what [vox.com](http://vox.com) says about the period: > **[9 things I wish people understood about Lyndon Johnson](https://www.vox.com/2015/1/17/7558391/lyndon-johnson-facts)** > > Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology,... > [@](#): > > The recent film Selma portrays Johnson and the civil rights movement at odds. King demands a voting-rights bill while Johnson hesitates and stalls. He’s more concerned with FBI surveillance on King than with voting rights. The film, which brilliantly captures the impact of grassroots protests in this period, offers a skewed depiction of Johnson. > > Johnson was fully committed to the cause of voting rights by the time he was reelected in 1964. While it is true that King wanted to move much more quickly on voting rights than LBJ and that the movement forced the president’s hand through the marches, they were both on the same page in terms of objectives. What was remarkable about this moment was that the president and the grass roots were often on the same page. Johnson and King were partners in 1964 and 1965, not adversaries. My position is basically the same as Vox’s. The depiction is skewed. LBJ was far more partners with King than an adversary. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doper-historians-film-selma-portays-lbj-as-enemy-of-civil-rights-mlk-any-basis-for-this/709201.md?page=4)