PDA

View Full Version : Missippi Burning



CP/M User
April 6th, 2004, 11:38 PM
Just on my thoughts from the Humor section, I
brought a copy of this movie & watch it last night.

I knew it was a great movie (well when I saw it
10 years ago), not great in the sense of what
happened to the coloured people in the movie &
the evil that surrounded it. Though what gets me
is how true the story line is?
Naturally there's a time & place for this setting &
a fairly valid reason for why people were the way
they were.

Though what about the FBI featured in this story.
What they did in the end was quite clever in that
the way they used scare tatics to flush out this
small criminal ring, though it doesn't seem fairly
FBI like, though having said that, was that
something that might of happened back then
from FBI agents?

Naturally, I don't wish to critise this movie if it
were slightly made up (obviously all movies -
even ones based on true stories) all have a
little story telling to add to the excitment. But
well I did see this movie 10 years ago in a
classroom at school & it was supposed to be a
bit of a lession about the KKK.

Cheers,
CP/M User.

Unknown_K
April 7th, 2004, 05:42 PM
You would be surprised what was fair game for police as well as the fbi years ago. I don't think physical torture (the old bright light and smacking around you see in the B&W 30's era gangster movies) was outlawed until 1936. Miranda laws didn't even come into being until 1960's.

From what I have seen on TV in the south quite a few police department officials were members of the clan back in the 50's and 60's and before so they could pretty much get away with anything they wanted to. Things really didnt change until the federal government started using civil liberty laws dating back to the civil war to prosecute clan members for killing black people.

What do you mean "Naturally there's a time & place for this setting &
a fairly valid reason for why people were the way
they were. " ?

Terry Yager
April 7th, 2004, 07:36 PM
I found the movie to be a fairly accurate account of the events, at least the parts of the story which are known to be "historical" fact.

--T

Terry Yager
April 7th, 2004, 07:50 PM
What do you mean "Naturally there's a time & place for this setting &
a fairly valid reason for why people were the way
they were. " ?

Yeah, I wondered about that too. What special circumstance constitutes a "valid reason" for violating a people's basic human rights, and even depriving people of thier lives? (Don't get me wrong, I do believe in justifiable killing in certain cases (self-defense, etc) however, I do believe that no killing is a good killing. All killing for any reason is necessarilly A Bad Thing).

--T

Unknown_K
April 7th, 2004, 08:07 PM
I can't see a valid reason for hating a whole group of people because of color, race, heritage, religion, fashion, social class, etc.

Rascism is much worse then the killing of an individual because its done behind the scene to a large group of people and unlike a killing nobody can be braught to justice over something the people being oppressed might not even know is happening. Its just as bad as the class system in India where if your born to a poor person of bad class your life is worthless and you will left to starve to death because you are unworthy of saving. In both cases people who might otherwise be the savior of mankind are never allowed the oportunity because of who their parents were.

Terry Yager
April 7th, 2004, 08:57 PM
I can't see a valid reason for hating a whole group of people because of color, race, heritage, religion, fashion, social class, etc.

I dunno, some groups deserve our hatred and contempt because of thier beliefs. Groups like the KKK, Nazis, etc. While such groups should not be banned of supressed in any way, their beliefs should be abhorred by all intelligent, right-thinking folks.


Rascism is much worse then the killing of an individual because its done behind the scene to a large group of people and unlike a killing nobody can be braught to justice over something the people being oppressed might not even know is happening. Its just as bad as the class system in India where if your born to a poor person of bad class your life is worthless and you will left to starve to death because you are unworthy of saving. In both cases people who might otherwise be the savior of mankind are never allowed the oportunity because of who their parents were.

The "Badness" of the crime is increased by an order of magnitude when the murder is done simply because of the racism (class-ism, anti-Semitism, whatever-ism).

--T

Unknown_K
April 7th, 2004, 09:19 PM
I can't see a valid reason for hating a whole group of people because of color, race, heritage, religion, fashion, social class, etc.

I dunno, some groups deserve our hatred and contempt because of thier beliefs. Groups like the KKK, Nazis, etc. While such groups should not be banned of supressed in any way, their beliefs should be abhorred by all intelligent, right-thinking folks.


Rascism is much worse then the killing of an individual because its done behind the scene to a large group of people and unlike a killing nobody can be braught to justice over something the people being oppressed might not even know is happening. Its just as bad as the class system in India where if your born to a poor person of bad class your life is worthless and you will left to starve to death because you are unworthy of saving. In both cases people who might otherwise be the savior of mankind are never allowed the oportunity because of who their parents were.

The "Badness" of the crime is increased by an order of magnitude when the murder is done simply because of the racism (class-ism, anti-Semitism, whatever-ism).

--T

I can't hate a group because they believe in something that I dont belive in. Alot of those groups hate or fear others for reason they can comunicate (no matter how crazy or stupid it sounds to you). This allows you to either disprove what they think, and maybe change their minds or at the very least know what their reason are and most likely what they will do in responce to their fears. If an individual in that hate groups acts in a way to harm somebody then they should be punished according to the law of the land. I would bet very few people in the KKK ever really hurt a black person, and we would all be shocked to see the names of very prominent americans that were once members of that organisation. I think Henry Ford was a NAZI lover and hated jews. If a white guy hates blacks and joins the KKK he is a rascist, what does it make the black guy who hates the KKK? Reminds me how some muslims not liking christians (and harming a few because of this) is making alot of christians hate all muslims.

Should a black man feel better because the guy who killed him just wanted to try out his new AK-47 on the next guy who walked by, instead of wanting him dead because he was black? I would think its all the same.. the guy was killed.

barryp
April 7th, 2004, 09:27 PM
"Based on a true story" means that the truth wouldn't sell enough tickets so they changed it. Please don't get history education from the movies. (Or any education?)


Sort of like when you read the ingredients list of whatever you're eating: often the last two items are artificial coloring and artificial flavoring. That means the first try didn't look good nor taste good...

Unknown_K
April 7th, 2004, 09:53 PM
"Based on a true story" means that the truth wouldn't sell enough tickets so they changed it. Please don't get history education from the movies. (Or any education?)


Sort of like when you read the ingredients list of whatever you're eating: often the last two items are artificial coloring and artificial flavoring. That means the first try didn't look good nor taste good...

It could also mean they had to change some names of the characters because they would get in trouble if they did not (implying something that probably did happen but was never legally proved in a court of law).

Ever try a natural toothpaste without sweetener in it? It tastes a bit funky until you use it a while. Now switch back to the normal type of toothepaste and you will say its way too sweet. You have to ask yourself which one is more natural?

Everything I read, see, or hear has to be analysed to see what the person spreading the information (or their company or organisation) has to gain by swinging my view into their opinion or interpretation of the facts. TV shows about actual events are interesting enough that you might go back to various sources to see what really happened. Even people who lived through a particular story in history end up having different versions of the same story, add a few years in between the story happening and the time somebody bothered to ask the servivors what really happened and it gets worse. Add artistic liscense to the guy writing the book or article and it gets distorted some more. Its human to bend the truth, or lie your ass of if the truth paints you in a bad light.

CP/M User
April 8th, 2004, 03:04 AM
"Unknown_K" wrote:

> What do you mean "Naturally there's a time
> & place for this setting & a fairly valid reason
> for why people were the way they were. " ?

Well let's break the question down:

The Time is the 1960s, the Place is a small town
in Missippi USA, though the reason why people were
the way they were would partly comes about due
to the time & what was happening in the states.

In a way the movie follows some of the facts
about the time/place. Though having read further
down at Barry's comments he seems to have a
vailid reason for why you shouldn't take a history
lession from a movie (even though I saw this
regardless). What I was confused about, was
what the KKK were doing. 10 years ago, I had
the impression it was this group which was causing
kaos to the coloured people, though if I read
the movie correctly & some of your comments, it
was people who were influence by this group to
take the initive (which would basically boil down
to brainwashing).

Now, I am sorry if I raised such a touchy subject,
please don't boil into a rant here, do it in the rants
section!

Cheers,
CP/M User.

Terry Yager
April 8th, 2004, 04:46 AM
Everything I read, see, or hear has to be analysed to see what the person spreading the information (or their company or organisation) has to gain by swinging my view into their opinion or interpretation of the facts.

Heh! That's the reason I was given the nickname "RumorControl" years ago, because of my tendancy to not take anything at face value, but to question everything. I even broke down a psychiatrist once (he actually resorted to name-calling). Well, that interview got off to a bad start anyways. His very first question to me was "Are you religious?", and my response was "Define religious." He didn't like that response at all, and the session just went downhill from there, finally ending in my offer to jump over his desk and slap the shit-eating-grin off of his face. Actually, I consider all "information", however it is disseminated, to be a form of propaganda, and treat it accordingly. It's an unfortunate fact that you can't fight propaganda with truth, it just doesn't work. People don't want to hear the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. (Propaganda contains just enough of the truth to make it appealing to the masses). The only effective weapon against propaganda is counter-propaganda.


TV shows about actual events are interesting enough that you might go back to various sources to see what really happened.

Thank ghawd for the internet, and search engines, which allow us to search literally thousands of sources instantaneously, at the touch of a button.

--T

Unknown_K
April 8th, 2004, 06:14 AM
You have to be careful with the internet because the "facts" are not necessarily correct there, and can be changed to suit the person running the site at a later date. Anything digital can be tampered with at any time, unlike a printed book.

Thats one thing that has me worried about all digital voting, there is no real evidence that the votes went the way the controllers say they did, no recounts that mean anything. People in later years can rig elections very easily especially when the makers of the voting box already supports a candidate for president like they do now (so much for being unbiased).

Terry Yager
April 8th, 2004, 06:50 AM
You have to be careful with the internet because the "facts" are not necessarily correct there, and can be changed to suit the person running the site at a later date. Anything digital can be tampered with at any time, unlike a printed book.

Yes, but given the sheer volume of material available, you are bound to download many different views on any given subject, which can help make better decisions about what to believe or not.


Thats one thing that has me worried about all digital voting, there is no real evidence that the votes went the way the controllers say they did, no recounts that mean anything. People in later years can rig elections very easily especially when the makers of the voting box already supports a candidate for president like they do now (so much for being unbiased).

There's always going to be a possibility of error in any ballot-count. (As demonstrated by our last presidential election and the tallying method used in Florida. There the method (punched-paper ballots) made an accurate recount impossible, because the more the ballots were handled, the greater the possibility of them becoming damaged by having extra punch-outs become displaced).

--T