HistoryProf

You seem to be forgetting the fact that half of the 'country' you're talking about was fighting to keep slaves. Even if the North was a vast unanimous body of abolitionists (which it most certainly was not....they were a considerable minority in the midwest, New England, and everywhere else they went - and there are a whole lot of diaries, journals, and letters to illustrate this as well) and I grant you your picture of benevolent northerners freeing blacks as they fought (which is the real revisionist history by the way....we are only beginning to correct many of those contrived feel-good fallacies), there is still that elephant of southern society and the culture of fear it was steeped in. That remains a part of our heritage as well, and continues to shape our national culture. You also fail to see how that kind of view of our history perpetuates that paternalistic view of blacks and other minorities who need white people to save them....the fact that I can recognize, as Moore does, that "The whole idea of a country of whites fighting over the fate of it's black citizenry is simply ridiculous" is not a sad thing, but it is a disconcerting one that many people have serious problems with. And those problems exist precisely because such sentiments fly in the face of so many people's contention that they aren't racist and don't know anyone who is. That sounds real nice, but has no foundation in reality. That's Moore's point. We somehow seemed to have convinced ourselves that we "have many black friends" and subsumed the racist core of our culture founded in centuries of hegemonic fears of "the other" within delusions of grandeur and patriotic fervor. You may indeed come into contact with "thousands of diverse people everyday", but i highly doubt you have had much of an opportunity to question them or otherwise get them to reveal their deepest fears. Just because no one acknowledges it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just makes it all the more difficult to identify and address....which is precisely what makes Moore's film so compelling....he's hit on something that is very real and very deeply ingrained in this country that a whole lot of people won't care to admit to....The whole point of the film - to address scot1458's question above - isn't that the guns are inherently bad, but that there is something wrong with US.....and that something is a tough pill to swallow, but one we're going to have to if we ever hope to evolve beyond this spiralling pattern of violence we've found ourselves in.

DeputyDave

Well, I never said I don't know of any racists. I meet racists everyday, of all colors, and I more than most people see the violence that is caused by that racism. I was trying to point out that this great white "fear" of blacks is false. It is liberal intellectuals like Moore siting around and agreeing that the great-unwashed masses in "fly over country" are a bunch of ignorant red necks.

I know Michael Moore has an agenda, and it is unfair of me to expect him to be showing all sides of the situation. His film was made to entertain and push his views. It did both very well.

Thanks to Mr. Moore I now know: All gun owners are dangerous idiots (at least everyone shown in the film are). Hollywood Celebes are wise and good (well, Matt Stone and Marilyn Manson are). Big business is evil (Lockheed Martin needs to be burned to the ground, but at least K-Mart is learning) And Canada is still, with her universal health care, the finest country on earth (as long as their Southern neighbor saves them from having to spend money on national defense and keeps the illegal immigration to a minimum).

jfoobar

Was the film otherwise laden with things that were clearly not meant to be taken seriously?

And you would be wrong.

You ask 1000 Americans the following question:

"Was the United States the first country or culture to practice widespread slavery?"

You think you'll get 1000 "No"s?

How so? What substantial element of chattel slavery in the US was completely new?

jfoobar

I would contend that an overwhelming majority of white people in the US would feel less at ease around a group of black male youths than they would around a group of similarly dressed white youths.

Absolutely correct.

jfoobar

Perhaps he was afraid of having any additional comments he made creatively edited to make him come off even worse. Moore has proven time and time and time again that he is quite fond if this very thing.

I believe that Moore enters into almost any interview he ever does with a preconceived notion as to whom is worthy of ridicule and who is not.

jfoobar

Do tell. Using the numbers from the same source and comparing against % of population, let's see what we have:*

In 2001, 5174 murders were committed by whites, 5521 by blacks.

Blacks comprise 12.9% of the population, whites 77.1%, a ratio of 5.98:1. Given that, blacks commit murder at a rate 6.4 times that of whites, based on 2001 numbers.

Based on 1997 numbers, for which there is more thorough analysis:

Of the roughtly 1.7 million violent crimes involving blacks and whites, about 90% involve a black perpetrator(s) and white victim(s). Apply population stats against this statistic and you are left with a ratio of roughly 54:1 if my math is correct...

Blacks commit almost every violent crime type at rates 4-8 times that of whites, per capita.

When blacks commit violent crime, they target white victims slightly more than 50 percent of the time (dispelling a long held myth). When whites commit violent crime, they target blacks only 3 percent of the time.

Based on the FBI's 1997 Hate Crime Statistics, blacks are twice as likely commit hate crimes per capita and 2.25 times as likely to commit a race-related hate crime.

<small>*Neither the FBI nor the Census Bureau recognizes Hispanic as an ethnic group. Truth be told, an overwhelming majority of Hispanic crimes are included in the "white" numbers, not in "Other." Studies on Hispanic crime have repeatedly suggested that Hispanics commit violent crime at higher per capita rates than Caucasians, so the disparity between white and black crime is probably greater than the numbers above suggest. However, the FBI does recognize Hispanic as an ethnicity when reporting on hate crimes, but only as the ethnicity of victims in race-related hate crimes, not as perpetrators.</small>

Did Moore mention any of this in BFC? He certainly didn't mention any of this when he was on Oprah the other day talking about how white fear is based on nothing at all.

Furthermore, white people aren't scared of black people, thet are scared of young black men. BIG difference.

Scot1458

you know...

why doesn't Moore do a movie on automiblies?

I mean the ratio of deaths from automobiles is very high compared to firearms.

Oh, forgot about the "ol agenda".

HistoryProf

Let me guess....still haven't seen the movie?

Matt925

This doesn't have anything to do with the point that I'm making. Let's get rid of all the minorities. 3059 white Americans were murdered by other white Americans. This is disproportionately higher than other industrialized countries. "Mixed ethnicity" - racism and poor race relations - is not to blame for the high rate of homicide in the United States, because most killings happen between members of the same race. Americans are killing each other.

MrN

Its once again very obvious that you haven't seen the film.
The Heston interview is one instance where the editor doesn't seem to enter into the picture.

And, as for the statisitics that you continue to quote, are you saying that violence in America would be reduced with less black people? What is it about them that reflects in the disproportionate representation in crime?

Statistics are frequently misinterpreted - what I'm interested in is interpretation and reasoning.

jfoobar

I was proposing a theory as to why Heston chose not to elaborate on his embarrassing comment. I believe what we were discussing is a theoretical, and is therefore not contained any any film either of us have seen. Perhaps you should address my comment directly instead of trying to sidestep it.

Are you denying that Moore has a long history of creative editing?

I am saying that violence would be reduced greatly if black Americans would commit violent crime at the same rates as white Americans. No doubt there are reasons more or less beyond their control that contribute to this problem. No doubt there are other reasons that are not.

I am also saying that Moore has deliberately misrepresented the fact that black Americans do commit virtually all violent crimes at substantially higher rates than the average. I need not see BFC to know this. He was on Oprah on Wednesday saying the same thing.

Then have at it. I have not interpreted anything. I have presented them. By all means, wander on down to your local library and get any recent copy of Crime in the United States and interpret the results for all of us.

Looking at statistics like those I quoted and shaking your head and saying something like, "Well, what do you expect from black people. <insert profane n-word comments here>" is both a buffoonish response and a chicken excrement response.

You know what else is a chicken excrement response, albeit a slightly less buffoonish one? Pretending a problem doesn't exist. Playing the blame game.

DeputyDave

Actually Moore is already getting flak for his "editing" of this interview. At the end of the interview there is a scene where Heston is walking away, as Moore Shouts, "What about (the girl, I forgot her name)!" and waves the picture.

It now looks like Moore filmed Heston walking away, and shortly after the interview (when he decided to end the scene with him laying the picture at Heston's house) he filmed himself shouting and waving the picture at nothing.

The first acusation came about because Moore is famous for only using one camera. Apparently some are saying it is obvious there were two separate angels during that scene. Something about there being no interuption in Moore speaking but the perspective instantly shifts between Moore and Heston, as if there were two cameras OR it was two separate shots edited together. (I hadn't heard this when I saw the movie so I wasn't looking for it)

If this is true, Moore did nothing wrong, editing is something every director does, but it does show that Moore is not above giving interviews his own "spin"

It was a very dramatic scene, Moore's pleading questions falling on deaf and insensitive ears. too bad it may not have happened.

MrN

So, by your reasoning, it doesn't matter what interview Heston had given to Moore, it was just going to be mis-interpreted and fixed in editing anyway.
The facts contradict your theory but who cares about facts, since the 'long history' is apparent.


So, you're saying skin color is directly a factor in violent behavior. And how convenient that we can identify the perpetrators with one look. "No doubt there are other reasons" but lets point out the obvious one.

No doubt Moore 'misrepresented' the facts on Oprah because he was afraid she would get violent on him.


By continually focusing on the link between race and violence, you are interepreting the statistics.

So, you're not blaming violence on ethnic background?

But, hey, now that we know that " violence would be reduced greatly if black Americans would commit violent crime at the same rates as white Americans", I think we need to have the networks make this into a PSA. Its so obvious, why didn't we think of it before?

MrN

You're picking nits. The interview ceased to be one when Heston got up and walked out of the room.

Pants

that is exactly right. I noticed this when I saw the film 2 weeks ago. He definately pulled out the picture and showed it to Heston (you see an over the shoulder shot of Moore with the pic in his hands and heston is down the stairs and in the background looking back at Moore and the picture). What you then see (and was clearly filmed later) is a reverse shot from Heston's POV. This shot would have been imposible to get because had there been a camera next to heston the two cameras would have been seeing each other and would be in each others shot. That and the fact that Moores crew didn't have two cameras. The shot was a pick-up shot later.

DeputyDave

Actually I was trying to point out that since that portion was "fixed' in editing, showing Heston in a bad light, other things as well can be done. A longer interview could have been done and only the statements that Moore wants shown left in.

You have to admit that Michael Moore has an agenda. Anyone who is honest with themselves can see that by watching his movies, seeing his short lived TV show, or reading his books. It does not stop him from being entertaining, or even right in his beliefs, but it does force you to not take everything he says as gospel.

MrN

I don't know if speculation of what might have happened and how it could have been edited is relevant. It could just as well have been not edited. The simple fact is, we'll never know.

ccoolidge

CLARK
There's no problem. I was just hoping
you could give me some insight into
the evolution of the market economy in
the early colonies. My contention is
that prior to the Revolutionary War
the economic modalities especially of
the southern colonies could most aptly
be characterized as agrarian pre-
capitalist and...

WILL
Of course that's your contention.
You're a first year grad student.
You just finished some Marxian
historian, Pete Garrison prob'ly, and
so naturally that's what you believe
until next month when you get to James
Lemon and get convinced that Virginia
and Pennsylvania were strongly
entrepreneurial and capitalist back in
1740. That'll last until sometime in
your second year, then you'll be in
here regurgitating Gordon Wood about
the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the
capital-forming effects of military
mobilization.

CLARK
(taken aback)
Well, as a matter of fact, I won't,
because Wood drastically underestimates
the impact of--

WILL
--"Wood drastically underestimates the
impact of social distinctions predicated
upon wealth, especially inheriated
wealth..." You got that from "Work in
Essex County," Page 421, right? Do
you have any thoughts of your own on
the subject or were you just gonna
plagerize the whole book for me?

I'm just kidding, I agree with your response, I just thought this thread is starting to get a little to 'American Political and Racial History' for it's own good.

jfoobar

How deliciously ironic that you are accusing me of not caring about facts.

I will try one more time to put this very plainly to you:

Heston made a comment that could be viewed negatively by many. He shut up and refused to answer any more questions on the subject. Do we agree on this?

Moore has a long established history of creative editing. Do we agree on this? So far you have failed to respond to this statement directly, even though I am now making it for the third time.

Heston might have feared making matters worse if he chose to elaborate...by giving Moore more fodder for the editing room. Please note my rather deliberate use of the word "perhaps" in my original comment on the subject.

A factor? I doubt it, although I suppose it is possible. I consider it unlikely.

I never said anything that even remotely implied this. You are grossly misinterpreting what I said for reasons I cannot begin to fathom.

By all means, show myself and everyone else here a shred of courtesy by responding to what we actually say.

That's just sad that you would even say that.

I was directly responding to an incorrect assertion by another poster with legitimate government statistics. I have interpreted nothing and you know it.

Once again, I invite you to respond directly to the statistics I posted.



Are you disputing the validity of my comment? If so, please ixnay the childish sarcasm and bring forth some legitimate (and I pray logical) arguments. If not, why not just admit that you are wrong and we can all move on with our lives.

MrN

Yes.

I don't see how this is relevant, because in the film (which you continually ignore because you haven't seen it) the Heston interview runs unedited. There is voice over establishing the interview, and then there are no cuts (at least apparent to my naked eye) and then Heston walks out.

Once again this is hypothetical because we don't know exactly why Heston didn't care to elaborate. Your contention that Heston feared the editing is weak, because if he was afraid of this, he wouldn't have granted the interview in the first place. As I said, if he didn't want to be 'misinterpreted' he should have explained his comment.



Then I don't know why you are defending Heston's comment in the first place. If you think there is no link between race and violence, then fine, end of argument. However you have continually posted figures that support Heston and then turn around and say the link is 'unlikely.' I'm confused, what is your conclusion?

Your comment was "violence would be reduced greatly if black Americans would commit violent crime at the same rates as white Americans" - which I definitely disagree with. It is akin to saying there is a link between ethnicty and violence. Its saying that America would be less violent if it wasn't for the black people.

And finally, I will apologize for my sarcastic tone in my comments, but then I didn't bring chicken excrement into the conversation.

jfoobar

I don't see how this is relevant, because we are not talking about what appears in the film, but rather what might have appeared in the film had Heston chose to elaborate on his comment (a fact that you continually ignore).

Is it your assertion that had Heston, instead of walking away, spent five minutes explaining to Moore his comment that Moore would have run the entire segment unedited?

Now for the fourth time: Do you agree or not that Moore has a long history of creative, and rather biased, editing of interviews?

Hell, Comedy Central's The Daily Show has more objective editing.

I made no contention as to his motive. I suggested a possible motive. Thus my use of the word PERHAPS.

I notice you failed to use the word perhaps as a precursor to your last sentence above. Are you that privy to the inner workings of Heston's mind that you know what he would have and would not have done?

We have covered this ground.

What I consider unlikely is that skin color is a factor, not a link. Quit changing words.

I do not believe that black people are born with an inherent higher likelihood of committing violent crimes. It is a long established fact that males commit far more violent crimes per capita than females. I do not believe that males are born with this as an inherent characteristic either.

In both cases I believe that the differences are environmental and cultural.

Disagree with it or not, it is still a fact, not an opinion.

There is most definitely a link between ethnicity and violent crime.

I would, however, love to see you try and establish otherwise. Unless you are able to somehow invalidate the statistical data collected annually by the DOJ, I don't see you having much luck.

The chicken excrement comment was directed at Moore, not you.

HistoryProf

How is a hypothetical situation that never took place a "fact" that can be ignored? You are grasping at straws here. The whole point is that he DIDN'T elaborate on his point....largely because he probably couldn't, even if he wanted to. I think that, more than anything, adds merit to Moore's argument that the ills of our society are so buried that we are largely unaware of them. They just continue to fester and grow beyond our control. You may be talking about what "might have appeared in the film," but doing so gets no one anywhere but further from the subject at hand.

Why does this matter to the topic at hand? Who cares what Moore's history of editing is, or whether he may or may not have edited something that never happened in the first damn place....it doesn't matter any more than If MrN wanted to know if "you agree or not that Heston has a long history of questionably racist views and incredibly right-wing conservative opinions regarding minorities." It's all relative, and it's all extremely ephemeral to the film and it's perspective. It's also serving as a perfect distraction that is preventing this discussion from focusing on the real issues in the film....the culture of fear and the resulting violence that has become inherent in our society. In a lot of ways, you are exhibiting exactly the kind of bait and switch BS that Moore illustrates as such a nefarious aspect of media coverage and societal perceptions of violence. Charleton Heston's comment was indeed telling, but focusing on that alone as the be all and end all of the film does BfC a tremendous disservice, and only illustrates your inability, either due to an abject refusal, or the fact that you haven't even seen the film, to discuss the larger issues at hand. This nitpicking over hypotheticals is ridiculous....let's move on......

MrN

Well then there's the rub, because I'm talking about the facts, while you're talking about hypothetical situations. The fact is, Heston walked away, the interview ran unedited. Lets leave the predictions to the clairvoyants.


I don't know and I don't care. I only said that Heston should have explained so that he would not be 'misinterpreted.'


And I will say again this has no bearing on this film - you can't predict what Moore would have done had Heston talked. Now if you're saying Moore creatively edited all of his interviews, then you might have a case. But, the fact remains that in Bowling for Columbine, at least two interviews ran in their entirety.



You're the one that has been saying perhaps Heston feared the editing. What I'm saying is, Heston should have feared the editing from the moment he granted the interview, since he knew who Moore was and a full day had passed between the appointment and the interview.



If there is a link, then it should be a factor. Saying skin color has been linked to violent crime and then not citing other factors, means you are pointing to the link as a determining factor. If this is not your intention, then append your statement.



There are differences between men and women on the genetic level which cause different levels of hormones and these can be directly linked to behavior. Men are more violent because they are men - I would suggest you drop this analogy.




In the interest of trying to get to a conclusion - are you saying ethnicity is a factor in violent behavior?

And then we can get to "violence would be reduced greatly if black Americans would commit violent crime at the same rates as white Americans."



I should point out here by the way that all the data you provided was aggregate numbers and census information. I have yet to see any hypothesis 'proving' this link between race and violence.

If you want to prove the link you need
a) a random sample
b) a measurement of violent behavior - can just be yes or no
c) an isolation of race among the other determining factors

I'm sure everyone in America would be interested in the results.

jfoobar

The "fact" is that Moore has a long history of creative editing of interviews. That is the only definitive assertion that I have made on this subject. You might be better served if you respond directly to my comments...

That isn't the point, that is just what happened. MrN and I were discussing why that might have been.

So it is OK for you to espouse your theory, as you just did, as to why Heston didn't elaborate but it isn't OK for me to espouse mine?

That's rather hypocritical.

I offered it as evidence to support the possibility that Heston retreated to minimize the damage of the comment he had made. Of course, you knew this already.

Could you explain how a discussion of Heston's motives for retreating from the interview is off-topic?

I dunno, does he?

This isn't a discussion about The English Patient that has transgressed into a technical discussion of bi-planes. BFC is a documentary that offers social commentary based largely on the views of its filmmaker. No element of this film is extremely peripheral (I think this is the word you wanted, no emphemeral) to the film and its perspective as every element is included only in support of the social commentary, even if the purpose of the commentary is only to promote discussion on the subject.

A. Absolute nonsense. No one is preventing you from discussing any other element of the film.

B. So it isn't OK for me to respond directly to absolute falsehoods perpetuated by others in this thread, such as:

and

but it is OK for you to get into a concerning the motivations of Union soldiers in enlisting to fight in the Civil War?

Wow, that's incredibly hypocritical.

I have done no such thing. I am discussing a specific element of the film. I have made no effort in this thread to discuss anything other than the Heston interview (for which I asked for an received clarification as to what was said) and Moore's comments on Oprah.

You are the one that seems to be employing the same nefarious editing techniques that Moore is so famous for.

jfoobar

And I offered a possible explanation as to why he might have chosen not to. Why is this so difficult for you to wrap your mind around?

Perhaps he underestimated Moore. He may dress like a boob but he is a very intelligent man.

There is no need for me to append my statement as my statement was correct, no matter how much it pains you to admit it.

From Merriam-Webster:

link: a connecting structure

factor: one that actively contributes to the production of a result

That there exists a link between race and violent crime is a fact.

To say that skin color is a factor in violent crime would be nothing less than pure malarchy. Skin color does not cause or even contribute to cause crime.

And yet there are documented native cultures in which women dominate, do most of the hunting and most of the fighting.

I would suggest that you drop this analogy because you will have a very difficult time proving, or even demonstrating, that genetic factors have more to do with gender-specific crime rates than environmental ones.

There is a link between ethnicity, or "race" as the FBI puts it, and violent crime committal rates. I think I have said this a few times already.

Is your only debate strategy here trying to get me to admit to being a racist or something? I'm starting to wonder.

A fact.

Yes, it was.



Perhaps you would care to explain to all of us how the entire United States population does not serve quite nicely as a random sample.

Random samples are used as a substitute for global samples. We have a global sample already.

We have that already also. They are called "laws."

You would seem to be trying to turn this into a scientific discussion about "violent behavior" so as to serve as a handy excuse to ignore the violent crime statistics I have posted. Perhaps you hope that I will become so exhausted by the continued elements of subjectivity that you throw into the mix that I will just give up and you can fool yourself into thinking that you proved your point.

That would be quite handy if one were trying to prove that race was a factor in violent crime. As I have yet to assert that it is, I don't see the point.

Here is some good reading for you since you believe economics to be the overwhelming factor in crime rates:

"Don't Blame Crime on Joblessness" by David Rubenstein (1992), originally printed in the Wall Street Journal is a very thorough study of crime rates versus economic factors.

As for race, I suggest you do some research to compare similar neighborhoods (sans for racial makeup) in similar areas. Perhaps you should start with Roxbury and South Boston, adjoining neighborhoods in Boston. Both have almost identical rates of impoverishment, single parent households, and public housing residency. Roxbury is predominantly Black and South Boston (or "Southy") is predominantly white (mostly Irish). Yes, the violent crime rate of Roxbury is 3-4 times that of Southy.

See "White-style Urban Woes" by David Whitman (1996), originally published in U.S. News and World Report if memory serves.

Why the difference? Skin color? Ethnic ancestry? No, I don't think so.