We might just as easily say that LBJ was concerned with the political tactics. Even if he did offer a “wait in line” approach, that is one hell of a long way from opposing.
There were quite a few civil rights leaders who did not trust LBJ and who did view that approach as a denial. Quite a few, especially the younger and impatient, didn’t entirely trust King either, they thought his non-violence too constraining, giving away the power of the threat.
King woke up every day of his later life under a death sentence, he knew that wherever he was, within a ten mile radius there were at least ten men who would love to be the man who shot him. LBJ and the Southern Democrats signed away the South for a generation, and they knew exactly what that meant.
Its rare enough when men set aside their selfish interest to do their country a solid. They should not be forgotten. And we do not need to gloss over their flaws, only men who have not proved their worth need to have their flaws buffed out.
Did they like each other, hate each other, or view each other with nothing more than cold political calculation? Who cares. They did it, it happened, and we are all the better for it. Those are the mountains that tower over the molehills.
Yeah, I used to read Mallard Filmore in the 90’s. I must have stopped before he did the one where he admitted he doesn’t have any jokes. As I recall, he would give a brief account of something a liberal did or said and spend the last panel mugging sarcastically.
I think conservatives could be funny, but not on Fox. There’s an editorial imperative there. I mean, Megan Kelly gets away with speaking for some women’s rights, but even she generally toes the line. And there’s the problem that conservative politics converted to humor would often come across as ‘punching down’. Try to make a little skit out of a typical conservative talking point like a guy who has multiple mansions isn’t really all that rich, but a guy who at least has a coffee maker and a PlayStation 1 isn’t really poor, and you’re going to find yourself off message.
A bit off topic, but I’ve seen this claim made a lot, and it’s very possibly true. But it’s interesting that in the course of this thread I’ve read the Politico article which has transcripts of a King-LBJ conversation in which MLK argued the opposite and Johnson seemed to agree.
I’m talking about Califano – the associate of LBJ that every single one of your links referenced, and how his claims about the film’s inaccuracies were shown to be false (if the historical records and documents in my links actually exist and say what the writers claim). But I seriously doubt you’re actually interested in anything but putting me down.
No idea where you got the idea that I had the idea that I attached an “if” to. Actually, I do know – you just made it up :).
I don’t know which claims of his your cites supposedly show to be false. I’ve noted earlier that his claims that Selma was LBJ’s idea has been disputed. But even if that claim is false - or any other specific claim about the film is false - that doesn’t change the fact that there have been a lot of criticisms of the film’s factual accuracy that have not been disputed or shown to be false. I am not required to defend every claim by every Selma critic in order for my position here to be correct.
No, you do know and it’s not because I made it up. Because if someone says, in response to something someone else said “if X is true, then …” that’s an implication that X is contained or implied in the other person’s words and not just a random comment about some theoretical situation.
I wish you were capable of disagreeing with me without casting aspersions on my motives. I can’t recall that you ever have – do you really think that every time we disagree, I’m being dishonest?
For example, you led with an assertion that there were “associates of King, Johnson, and historians who disagree” with the critics, and posted a bunch of cites that purported to represent those. And after I read through all your cites and pointed out that there were no “associates of King, Johnson, and historians who disagree” but only a couple of journalists, and that the “associates of King, Johnson, and historians” that you quoted either essentially agree with the critics or don’t discuss LBJ at all, you were not forthright about it - you were unable to get the words “I was wrong about that” out of your keyboard. Instead, you simply announced that well, there are unnamed others out there (that you weren’t going to cite because you don’t think I’m actually interested).
That’s not something that I respect. And so on for some of your other “tactics” here.
I don’t know if it’s “every time” we disagree. But every time I said it it’s because I think so in that instance. You can count them up if you like.
This is inaccurate. I had no cites for associates of Johnson, but I did have cites with associates of King and a historian who disagreed with the criticism. In addition, there were articles with specific historical documentation and records (which shouldn’t require a historian to interpret, since they’re just straight-forward statements) that directly refute some of the criticism (in particular, Califano’s criticism, which was indeed a main point of each one of your cites).
Why is it necessary to assume I’m being dishonest? Can’t we just actually be interpreting things differently? Isn’t it possible that you’re not able to read my mind, and we might actually be disagreeing honestly?
F-P – some of my links really did refute big chunks of the criticism. If it was a journalist by trade, and not a historian, who dug up those historical records, that doesn’t make the refutation any less legitimate.
And after I pointed this out in detail (second paragraph of post #113) your response was just to say (post #117) “There are other historians and associates that disagree with the claims of historical inaccuracy.”
See above. What am I supposed to think? Is there any other reason that accounts for you being unwilling to either back up your claims or back off them? These are not complicated matters, and you can easily just open your own cites in a web browser and do a search on the word “johnson” and see it come up empty. And I quoted the words of your historian for you. You can see what he says.
See above. Refuting “big chunks” of criticism doesn’t make the picture accurate. Even assuming they’ve really refuted it.
If I see historians on one side and a couple of journalists on the other, then I go with the historians. (Especially since - as noted - one of these journalists was mostly focused on the “artistic license” and “big picture” accuracy, and the other clearly distorted the criticisms in order to refute them.)
I had multiple cites because there were multiple lines of criticism, and multiple refutations. Why are you so intent on ignoring the actual historical documents and records that refuted Califano’s claims? Just because I used the word “historian” and they were written by journalists (as if there’s no overlap in the fields)?
If you’re supposed to think anything, it’s that I’m honestly disagreeing, and I honestly don’t believe it’s appropriate to assume that the critics of the film are automatically accurate and the refutations are not, especially when you haven’t seen the film.
I guess you ignored my cites, because they actually had real historical documents and records to back them up. Whether the writer calls himself a “journalist” or “historian” shouldn’t matter – the references might be good and they might not be, but it’s not dependent on the occupation of the writer.
I have no problem with you having multiple cites. I have a problem with you presenting these cites as "“associates of King, Johnson, and historians who disagree” when the two associates of King that you cited did not even discuss the King-Johnson issue. And more than that, I have a problem with you failing to acknowledge that when it was pointed out (and in fact repeating the incorrect claim in post #128).
And similar for the historian, who did not back your claim.
See post #125.
Yes, there’s a difference. And besides, you wrote historians and journalists. And besides, neither of the two journalists you quoted were historians.
I think you honestly believe those things. But I don’t think your conduct in this discussion has been forthright.
Here’s a piece by a journalist (uh-oh!) who cites many historians (yay!) in an attempt to determine the historical accuracy of the depiction of LBJ and his relationship with MLK Jr.
Here is the piece (one of them, anyway… and it’s by a journalist – beware!) that cites historians and historical records to (according to the article) show the falseness of Califano’s criticisms.
As to my forthrightness, your analysis of my motives and intellectual honesty is no better now than when you cast aspersions on my motives in some of the many “black people are inherently inferior in intelligence” threads.
Why not just assume I’m being honest? Wouldn’t you rather assume I’m honest (but mistaken, in your view) on the off-chance I’m not, rather then assume I’m dishonest when I might be actually being honest?
I’ve never liked Jon Stewart, but Kyle Smith was over the top.
A better take, the best take on Stewart ever:
The guy gets lower ratings than*** Family Guy ***re-runs or even The Mike Huckabee Show. He doesn’t matter to many people. It just so happens, among the few people who like him are liberal media members who give him far more attention than his small talents and small ratings ever merited.
And Stephen Colbert mattered had even fewer viewers than*** Cleveland Show ***reruns. When he gets similar ratings in Letterman’s spot, NBC will wonder, “What happened? He was so popular at Comedy Central.”
I’ve explained why in a couple of prior posts. You’ve mostly ignored the reasons I laid out there. I have nothing to add over what I’ve already said.
I post what I think is true, as opposed to what I’d “rather assume”.
I’m sorry you seem to be troubled by this, and frankly you seem like you’re probably a nice guy IRL, but that’s how I see it. If we did meet IRL I would try to stay away from discussions of issues of this sort, but on this MB I call it as I see it.