Doper Historians - Film "Selma" portays LBJ as enemy of civil rights & MLK - Any basis for this?

[Malthus]

@you_with_the_face

The following facts are not in dispute though: 1) the FBI monitored and taped MLK during Johnson’s administration, 2) Johnson was aware of this, and 3) he allowed it to happen. Johnson and Hoover were in fact very close friends, so it strains credibility that he wouldn’t have known and tacitly blessed his conduct toward King. So yes, we should assume he approved of what the FBI was doing in the absence of proof that he denied otherwise.

1 is true. I have no idea if (2) and (3) are.

I also have no idea if Johnson and Hoover were really “close friends”. The most famous quote concerning LBJ and Hoover was that, when asked why LBJ did not fire Hoover, he is reported to have said something like “I’d rather have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in”, which hardly points to close friendship. [From: Irving Wallace, The R Document, 1976] Rather, it points to what has often been alleged - that Hoover was simply too politically powerful, knew too much damaging stuff, to touch, and so could do as he pleased.

After all, Truman allegedly said Hoover transformed the FBI into his private secret police force; Truman stated that “we want no Gestapo or secret police. The FBI is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in sex-life scandals and plain blackmail. J. Edgar Hoover would give his right eye to take over, and all congressmen and senators are afraid of him” … yet Truman didn’t fire him, either.

Now, it is a valid criticism that these presidents really ought to have got rid of him, if they thought he was setting up a “Gestapo”. But that’s a diffeent issue, that directly attributing Hoover’s actions to them. It may well be the case that both are bad, but the one is bad for a different reason than the other.

The link you posted is to a lengthy conspiracy cite claiming a cover-up of the JFK assassination. I’d not put much weight on it.

It’s valid to point out that Johnson did not, in fact, sic the FBI on MLK with the explicit goal of hurting his cause. But to act as if this fact fudgery was a beyond-the-pale affront to LBJ’s legacy? Such melodramatic theatrics belong only in Broadway. As POTUS, he was ultimately responsible for anything the FBI did that he didn’t expressly forbid. Acting as though Johnson was completely blameless in how the FBI treated MLK’s privacy is more disturbing than the opposite.

Weak sauce is what I’d call the inordinate focus on this detail. Perhaps if there was a was any doubt that the FBI actually, in fact, harassed MLK while Johnson was president, I’d assign more value to this complaint. But that’s not even in dispute. The best we can say that Johnson is only indirectly responsible for the FBI’s conduct, and since that pretty much disqualifies him from sainthood, all the hurt feelings about it only look shrill and hysterical.

TDLR: RFK might’ve sicked Hoover on MLK, but it happened on LBJ’s watch. So he carries a lot of that hot potato, sorry.

Stripped of the hyperbole about “hysteria”, that’s more of an ‘I don’t care much about this inaccuracy’ response. Which is fair, but not the same as a ‘there is no inaccuracy’ response.

To my mind, it is really simple: did JFK actually inspire or approve of this tactic? If the answer is “no”, while the movie claims it is “yes”, there is an inaccuracy. It is one that tends to put disrepute on a historical character, so it makes sense that people would not like it.

A comparison would be with the other recent big history biopic, The Imitation Game, that had Turing blackmailed by a communist agent (which was pure fiction).

[Tom_Tildrum]

@Just_Asking_Questions

Interesting you bring up Lincoln, as it had glaring inaccuracies as well.

Maybe you’re thinking of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.

[Peremensoe]

@Malthus

If this is the only evidence of LBJ’s involvement in the tapes…, it is weaksauce…
It does not go anywhere to prove LBJ’s involvement.

On the other hand, it doesn’t exactly support the firm claim (per Cohen) of the “bevy of historians” that it “never happened.”

[Rick_Kitchen]

Why is it so important that this particular film, made by a black director with majority black actors, has to be more historically accurate than other films made by white directors and starring white actors?

[Just_Asking_Questions]

@Rick_Kitchen

Why is it so important that this particular film, made by a black director with majority black actors, has to be more historically accurate than other films made by white directors and starring white actors?

I can’t speak for the others in this thread, but for me your question is insulting and race-baiting. I’ve said I want ALL films that self-identify to be accurate. Whether it has a black director or cast makes no difference.

[Equipoise]

I expect you all to be just as outraged by American Sniper.

[Rick_Kitchen]

@Equipoise

I expect you all to be just as outraged by American Sniper.

This.

[Miller]

@Equipoise

I expect you all to be just as outraged by American Sniper.

Do you think that the relative importance of the historical figure, and his position in history, should be a factor in how much someone cares about historical accuracy in the popular media? Because I’ve only heard of Chris Kyle in the context of an SDMB thread about his estate being sued by Jesse Ventura. I’ve no real idea who Kyle was, or what he did to deserve having a movie made about him, or, indeed, that such a movie existed in the first place.

I have, on the other hand, heard a bit about who MLK and LBJ were, and what they did, and as such, am a bit more invested in how they’re portrayed in movies purporting to depict historical incidents from their lives.

[Peremensoe]

^ Yes.

Also-- are there notable inaccuracies in the sniper film? What I see at the link seems to be all about stupid people’s reactions to it, not so much the actual content.

[Just_Asking_Questions]

You people!

This isn’t just about Selma, or even Inglourious Basterds. There are plenty of “historical” movies, that have taken liberties with the facts, to be outraged at.

Ray
JFK
Sniper (the 1993 one)
Titanic
Heart Like A Wheel
Argo
The Richard Petty Story
The Untouchables
Angels in America

just to name a few.

[you_with_the_face]

@Malthus

1 is true. I have no idea if (2) and (3) are.

I also have no idea if Johnson and Hoover were really “close friends”.

Probably because you haven’t attempted to even research the question. You’re content enough to sit back and brush aside my cites without looking up your own.

You and other’s skepticism that LBJ was in the dark of the FBI’s conduct is bizarre, to say the least. Nothing I’ve read indicates that he wasn’t intimately knowledgeable about Hoover’s activities. In less than 5 minutes, I was able to pull this up on my phone. From here:

Johnson’s tapes reveal his complicated relationship with Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, his dependence on the FBI as a tool to respond to local problems, and his rapport with J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI’s legendary director serving in his fourth decade at the helm. Hoover’s influence was so substantial in Washington, DC, that his nominal boss, Robert Kennedy, had to ask President Johnson—a well-known rival and antagonist—for assistance in gathering information about what was happening inside the FBI.

I’m sure someone will trapeze along to assert that this proves nothing, but what is absent in this thread is evidence that he didn’t know or approve. Unfortunately, this requires as much gullibility as believing Bush didn’t know waterboarding was going on. Given the historical record, the default and unbiased assumption should be that Johnson was in full knowledge of what happened.

Rather, it points to what has often been alleged - that Hoover was simply too politically powerful, knew too much damaging stuff, to touch, and so could do as he pleased.

An idea that is widely considered a myth. Is it that hard to believe that Hoover was liked by LBJ that exaggerated BS like “he knew where the dead bodies were buried” is more persuasive to you that simpler explanations?

The link you posted is to a lengthy conspiracy cite claiming a cover-up of the JFK assassination. I’d not put much weight on it.

Okay, then see the one I just linked to. Or this one. Oh yeah, and this one, which details a Johnson speech in which he states:

Edgar Hoover has been my close personal friend for almost 30 years, and he was my close neighbor for 19 years. I know he loved my dog, and I think he thought a little bit of me as a neighbor, and I am proud and happy to join the rest of the Nation this afternoon in honoring this quiet and humble and magnificent public servant.

[you_with_the_face]

Just came across this pearl of juiciness in the Atlantic, in an 2011 article about the movie J. Edgard.

Of course, the assassination of John F. Kennedy later that fall cast a pall over the future of civil rights until Lyndon Johnson began pushing it again the following year. Nevertheless, the new president—now recipient of the results from the bugs and wiretaps that were capturing Martin Luther King’s every move—was watchful of the minister, though apparently for additional reasons. Johnson seemed to consume the King surveillance with gusto, especially the personal stuff. “He listened to the tapes that even had the noises of the bedsprings,” Time correspondent Hugh Sidey reported in 1975. Johnson would say, “Goddammit, if you could only hear what that hypocritical preacher does sexually.”

So with this, can we finally put to pasture the idea that Johnson didn’t know and approve of Hoover’s spying on MLK? It’s embarrassingly naive.

[Deeg]

@Rick_Kitchen

Why is it so important that this particular film, made by a black director with majority black actors, has to be more historically accurate than other films made by white directors and starring white actors?

Dopers (myself included) where annoyed by The Imitation Game with nary a black person in it.

[Malthus]

@Rick_Kitchen

Why is it so important that this particular film, made by a black director with majority black actors, has to be more historically accurate than other films made by white directors and starring white actors?

I don’t think it is. See other threads discussing the inaccuracies in The Imitation Game, which, as far as I know, has no Black directors, actors, etc.

It is inevitable that a movie made concerning history will attract analysis of its historical accuracy.

[Malthus]

@you_with_the_face

Probably because you haven’t attempted to even research the question. You’re content enough to sit back and brush aside my cites without looking up your own.

You and other’s skepticism that LBJ was in the dark of the FBI’s conduct is bizarre, to say the least. Nothing I’ve read indicates that he wasn’t intimately knowledgeable about Hoover’s activities. In less than 5 minutes, I was able to pull this up on my phone. From here:

I’m sure someone will trapeze along to assert that this proves nothing, but what is absent in this thread is evidence that he didn’t know or approve. Unfortunately, this requires as much gullibility as believing Bush didn’t know waterboarding was going on. Given the historical record, the default and unbiased assumption should be that Johnson was in full knowledge of what happened.

An idea that is widely considered a myth. Is it that hard to believe that Hoover was liked by LBJ that exaggerated BS like “he knew where the dead bodies were buried” is more persuasive to you that simpler explanations?

Okay, then see the one I just linked to. Or this one. Oh yeah, and this one, which details a Johnson speech in which he states:

The cite you linked to lists it as a “myth”, but then goes on to say exactly what I said - that he was politically powerful and knew too much to fire.

2. Hoover’s secret files kept presidents from firing him.

Hoover had particularly good relationships with at least two presidents he served under: Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. Of the others, Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon all considered sacking him, but, files aside, they had good political reasons for keeping Hoover. Even in the 1960s, he had a strong public image as an honest, competent law enforcement technocrat. While his relationship with John and Robert Kennedy was often tense — yes, it was Hoover who, through wiretaps of Chicago mob boss Sam Giancana, discovered President Kennedy’s affair with mob-connected socialite Judith Campbell Exner — Hoover also could have been covering up embarrassing secrets for Camelot.

Still, Hoover built his FBI files into an intimidating weapon, not just for fighting crime but also for bullying government officials and critics and destroying careers. The files covered a dizzying kaleidoscope — Supreme Court justices such as Louis Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter, movie stars Mary Pickford and Marilyn Monroe, first lady Eleanor Roosevelt, physicist Albert Einstein, Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann and philanthropist John D. Rockefeller III, among others — often replete with unconfirmed gossip about private sex lives and radical ties.

By 1960, the FBI had open, “subversive” files on some 432,000 Americans. Hoover deemed the most sensitive files as “personal and confidential” and kept them in his office, where his secretary, Helen Gandy, could watch them. Today, with few exceptions, Hoover’s FBI files are open for any American to see at the National Archives. They make fascinating reading and paint a stark portrait of power run amok.

The issue isn’t that Hoover was ‘blackmailing’ presidents, but that he was too powerful, too connected, and knew too much to dispense with.

[Malthus]

@you_with_the_face

Just came across this pearl of juiciness in the Atlantic, in an 2011 article about the movie J. Edgard.

So with this, can we finally put to pasture the idea that Johnson didn’t know and approve of Hoover’s spying on MLK? It’s embarrassingly naive.

No, because the quote cited doesn’t show up anywhere but in the Atlantic article, and on “Dumbocratquotes. com” Google it and see.

[you_with_the_face]

[quote=Malthus**The issue isn’t that Hoover was ‘blackmailing’ presidents, but that he was too powerful, too connected, and knew too much to dispense with. [/quote]

An allegation that you have yet to support with anything other than speculation. Nothing that has been released from Hoover’s files that shows he had anything that deadly on Johnson or anyone close to LBJ; we’d have all heard about it by now. From all published indications, he got along with the president, so we have no reason to believe LBJ had no control over what he did.

No, because the quote cited doesn’t show up anywhere but in the Atlantic article, and on “Dumbocratquotes. com” Google it and see.

Waitaminute. Are you seriously insinuating, with a straight face, that the * Atlantic* published a phony quote…and no one after all this time forced them to publish a retraction? A major news publication writes something less than flattering about a former president and what–we’re supposed to reject it out of hand because it goes against our preconceived wishes? This is amazing.

So what if it shows up on “Dumbocratquotes”? This one of the saddest retorts I’ve ever come across on this board, and that’s saying a lot.

[Malthus]

@you_with_the_face

An allegation that you have yet to support with anything other than speculation. Nothing that has been released from Hoover’s files that shows he had anything that deadly on Johnson or anyone close to LBJ; we’d have all heard about it by now. From all published indications, he got along with the president, so we have no reason to believe LBJ had no control over what he did.

I never alleged that he had “anything deadly on Johnson or anyone close to LBJ”. Where are you getting that from?

I said he was too importnat politically and knew too much. You seem to be interpreting that as ‘he was blackmailing LBJ’ which I never said and do not mean.

Waitaminute. Are you seriously insinuating, with a straight face, that the * Atlantic* published a phony quote…and no one after all this time forced them to publish a retraction? A major news publication writes something less than flattering about a former president and what–we’re supposed to reject it out of hand because it goes against our preconceived wishes? This is amazing.

So what if it shows up on “Dumbocratquotes”? This one of the saddest retorts I’ve ever come across on this board, and that’s saying a lot.

I’m saying that there is no support for the existence of this quote other than the Atlantic article. Nothing. Even “Dumbocratquotes” cites the Atlantic article, not any primary source.

Look for yourself.

This has all the hallmarks of an urban legend-type story: a quote with no backup and a single source, years after the events, and cited only in dubious publications–not in actual historical sources.

You believe uncritically everything you read in a magazine without checking, and you call me naive?

In any event, let’s assume your cited quote was 100% true. Just for the sake of argument. After all, it may well be - I’m not saying it isn’t true, just that it isn’t well-sourced in that article (there is a difference, you know).

Even then, it goes exactly nowhere to proving that the allegation made by the critics is incorrect!

The allegation made by the critics - and I am again citing the article above - is that LBJ authorized use of the tapes to blackmail MLK. As the article puts it:

… authorized FBI director J. Edgar Hoover to use secret tape recordings of sexual encounters against the civil rights leader …

Your quote, in contrast, claims in effect that LBJ was listening to that stuff for his own amusement:

Of course, the assassination of John F. Kennedy later that fall cast a pall over the future of civil rights until Lyndon Johnson began pushing it again the following year. Nevertheless, the new president—now recipient of the results from the bugs and wiretaps that were capturing Martin Luther King’s every move—was watchful of the minister, though apparently for additional reasons. Johnson seemed to consume the King surveillance with gusto, especially the personal stuff. “He listened to the tapes that even had the noises of the bedsprings,” Time correspondent Hugh Sidey reported in 1975. Johnson would say, “Goddammit, if you could only hear what that hypocritical preacher does sexually.”

Nary a word about him “authorizing Hoover to use secret tape recordings of sexual encounters against [MLK]”. On the contrary: the Atlantic article claims it was RFK, not LBJ, who ordered Hoover to make the wiretaps, and says nothin whatsoever about the use of sex tapes for blackmail.

In short, the very best evidence you have been able to find - and I’d say it is pretty dubious, but let’s assume it is totally valid - doesn’t support yourt case. You have, in effect, so far produced nothing that does.

You can fling accusations of ‘hysteria’ and ‘saddest retorts’ all you like - what you can’t do, apparently, is come up with evidence to support your case. And again, it may well be the case you are right - I have no idea; all I know is that you, and the original article, are not convincing because you have cited no evidence that supports your case.

[you_with_the_face]

@Malthus

I said he was too importnat politically and knew too much. You seem to be interpreting that as ‘he was blackmailing LBJ’ which I never said and do not mean.

Because it’s a meaningless statement if you’re not tying this to any action of consequence. What does “knew too much” mean? What do you think Hoover knew and why would this knowledge prevent LBJ from getting rid of him?

I’m saying that there is no support for the existence of this quote other than the Atlantic article. Nothing. Even “Dumbocratquotes” cites the Atlantic article, not any primary source.

The source was in the paragraph, FFS! Hugh Sidey was the source. Since the man wrote a book about several US presidents (including LBJ) entitled Portraits of the Presidents, the logical assumption was that the quote came from there.

Look for yourself.

Look for myself? Lol. I’ve done enough homework for you. Flat out denying that LBJ knew about Hoover’s activities is silly enough, but refusing to change your position in the face of evidence just makes you willfully ignorant.

The allegation made by the critics - and I am again citing the article above - is that LBJ authorized use of the tapes to blackmail MLK.

And it’s already been acknowledged that he didn’t do this. My point (and the article’s) is that reacting to this fudgery as if it’s blasphemy against LBJ is the stuff of loud-mouthed ignoramuses. LBJ condoned the spying and savored listening to MLK’s wiretaps (his advisors did too) and he apparently even went so far as to tell members of the press about all the juicy things he knew about MLK’s affairs. What this means is that Johnson’s conduct was villainous enough to make a little artistic license fair game.

Your quote, in contrast, claims in effect that LBJ was listening to that stuff for his own amusement:

Yes, which is pretty appalling, doncha think? Imagine the POTUS listening to you having sex, using produced tapes from a warrantless wiretap, and then talking to other people about it. Grounds for impeachment maybe? Like Nixon-levels of seriousness, perhaps?

You can fling accusations of ‘hysteria’ and ‘saddest retorts’ all you like - what you can’t do, apparently, is come up with evidence to support your case…

You’re reminding me of Bush supporters during the days when WMD were supposedly buried in Syria. Every bit of evidence that contradicts the conclusion you want is tossed aside.

[Malthus]

@you_with_the_face

Because it’s a meaningless statement if you’re not tying this to any action of consequence. What does “knew too much” mean? What do you think Hoover knew and why would this knowledge prevent LBJ from getting rid of him?

As I said - and so did your source - because he’s too useful.

The source was in the paragraph, FFS! Hugh Sidey was the source. Since the man wrote a book about several US presidents (including LBJ) entitled Portraits of the Presidents, the logical assumption was that the quote came from there.

Assume if you like. This has all the hallmarks of a lazy attribution - a name and a date, no actual source.

Look for myself? Lol. I’ve done enough homework for you. Flat out denying that LBJ knew about Hoover’s activities is silly enough, but refusing to change your position in the face of evidence just makes you willfully ignorant.

Huh? What?

Now you are just making shit up. I was never “Flat out denying that LBJ knew about Hoover’s activities”.

Please quote one place where I “flat out denied” this.

As for “done enough homework”, I’m simply pointing out that the cite you are using sucks as a cite. You are of course under no obligation to provide cites or to support them, if you don’t want to.

And it’s already been acknowledged that he didn’t do this.

So you are acknowledging I was right? Thanks!

My point (and the article’s) is that reacting to this fudgery as if it’s blasphemy against LBJ is the stuff of loud-mouthed ignoramuses. LBJ condoned the spying and savored listening to MLK’s wiretaps (his advisors did too) and he apparently even went so far as to tell members of the press about all the juicy things he knew about MLK’s affairs. What this means is that Johnson’s conduct was villainous enough to make a little artistic license fair game.

No, it isn’t the point of the article. The point of the article was that the alleged historical inaccuracy wasn’t inaccurate.

I see I must quote it again for you:

The part of the film that seems to have most riled Johnson’s defenders is the film’s suggestion–not directly stated, but implied–that Johnson authorized FBI director J. Edgar Hoover to use secret tape recordings of sexual encounters against the civil rights leader. **Cohen calls it a “profoundly ugly moment” that “a bevy of historians say…never happened.”

What about Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Nick Kotz, who wrote Judgment Days: Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King Jr., and the Laws that Changed America? ** There he quotes from a memo written to Hoover by one of his top aides, Cartha DeLoach, who had just delivered a summary of a particularly incriminating tape to Johnson’s chief assistant, Walter Jenkins. DeLoach said Jenkins told him he would pass on the material to the president, adding:

Jenkins was of the opinion that the FBI could perform a good service to the country if this matter could somehow be confidentially given to members of the press.

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.

Which gets back to my original point, which I have been saying all along - that no, it doesn’t. The author is wrong.

Yes, which is pretty appalling, doncha think? Imagine the POTUS listening to you having sex, using produced tapes from a warrantless wiretap, and then talking to other people about it. Grounds for impeachment maybe? Like Nixon-levels of seriousness, perhaps?

Sure, it was gross and appalling (if it happened). Nixon-levels? No, not really.

You’re reminding me of Bush supporters during the days when WMD were supposedly buried in Syria. Every bit of evidence that contradicts the conclusion you want is tossed aside.

But you haven’t produced even one bit of “contradictory evidence”. On the contrary in fact - you acknowledge, above, that I was correct in the first place!

I’m not an “LBJ supporter” (I do not really care one way or another about him). I am merely pointing out what I see as a weakness in the article cited. The fact that you evidently feel the need to launch all kinds of personal attacks because of that speaks volumes, but about you, not me.