‘Selma’ vs. History - Elizabeth Drew

[swag]

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2015/jan/08/selma-vs-history/?insrc=wbll

By distorting an essential truth about the relationship between Lyndon Johnson and Dr. Martin Luther King over the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Selma has opened a very large and overdue debate over whether and how much truth the movie industry owes to the public. The film suggests that there was a struggle between King and Johnson over whether such a bill should be pushed following the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, signed into law in July of that year. The clear implication is that Johnson was opposed to a voting rights bill, period, and that he had to be persuaded by King. This story has now been propagated to millions of viewers, to the point where young people in movie houses boo Johnson’s name.

But there was no struggle. This is pure fiction. The remarkable story of the relationship between Johnson and King was that two such different men, from such different backgrounds, with such different constituencies, and responsibilities, formed a partnership to get the voting rights bill through. This is not to say that the two became pals: they were understandably wary of each other but managed to overcome that as well as other possible sources of tensions to get the job done. Ultimately, they had fallings out over King’s efforts to carry his civil rights campaign into the north, in particular Chicago, and his open opposition to the Vietnam War. But so far as the scope of the movie goes, Martin Luther King’s glorious role in the civil rights movement could have been kept intact without having to make Lyndon Johnson the heavy—a pure fabrication.

The faux tension has obviously been inserted into the movie in order to make it more “dramatic” and add “buzz,” but in doing so, the makers of Selma have taken prohibitive liberties with the truth. So much of Selma is fine and true and important—especially when it comes to the famous marches in 1965—that there need not have been gratuitous exploitation of a major set of events in our history, or deliberately misleading the public. The actual history is a highly dramatic story, with rich characters at its center. Both King and Johnson were complex and wily, and the interactions between them that led to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would make for an important and engrossing movie.

In fact, there was never any question that there would be a voting rights bill. In fact, a section on voting rights had been part of the original civil rights legislation sent to Congress in 1963 by John F. Kennedy and taken up by Johnson as his top legislative priority after the Kennedy assassination. But the voting rights section fell by the wayside both because the highest civil rights priority at the time was access for blacks to public accommodations—the focus of the sit-ins and violence against blacks by southern officials—and because the sponsors of the bill were concerned about loading it up too much to make it viable in Congress. So voting rights legislation was postponed. The only question was when it would be brought up again. In the fall of 1964, Johnson felt that it should be reintroduced in stronger form when the bill and the public were ready.

. . . more

[Sopkoviak]

1. Johnson wasn't the heavy in this instance

It was the Senate controlled by the Democratic Party that was the opposition.

The Act was passed by the U.S. Congress over strong opposition within the Democratic Party. President Lyndon Johnson asked Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen for help [2] in breaking the Democratic filibuster. Dirksen spoke on the Senate floor,

“The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied. It is here!"

Under Johnson, the Senate had not been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a Civil Rights Bill. With Republican support, the final count showed 44 Democrats and 27 Republicans voting to end the filibuster, with 23 Democrats and only 6 Republicans opposed. The formal Senate vote on the bill took place on June 19, 1964. It passed overwhelmingly, 73-27.

The final Senate vote on August 4 was 49 Democrats and 30 Republicans in favor, one Republican and 17 Democrats opposed. Segregationists who voted against the Voting Rights Act were J. William Fulbright , awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Bill Clinton, and Al Gore, Sr., father of Democratic Presidential Nominee Al Gore.

[elleng]

2. Thanks for this.

The reason behind Johnson's 'reluctance' to address this Bill was not made clear, in the movie, but your explanation does so.

[sketchy]

3. Wikipedia says Albert Gore, Sr. voted for the Voting Rights Act

from link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gore%2C_Sr.

Excerpt:

"Gore was one of only three Democratic senators from the former Confederate states who did not sign the 1956 Southern Manifesto opposing integration, the others being Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas (who was not asked to sign) and Tennessee's other senator, Estes Kefauver, who refused to sign. South Carolina Senator J. Strom Thurmond tried to get Gore to sign the Southern Manifesto, but Gore refused. Gore could not, however, be regarded as an integrationist, as he voted against some major civil rights legislation, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He did support the Voting Rights Act of 1965."

[Dems2002]

4. Saw the movie

I saw the movie and the people decrying Johnson's depiction need a thicker skin. Johnson was clearly not depicted as being against or opposed to the Voting Rights Act. He was trying to be President of everything, and he wanted to fight a War on Poverty. (Gotta love him for that) He was pushing back on King over timing.

I find the outrage over his depiction to be really interesting. Since it began with a Johnson deputy, it feels to me like us white liberals can't stand to be in the background, even on Civil Rights. The guy tried to claim that the March itself was Johnson's idea.

The movie didn't paint Johnson poorly. But it was a movie about King.

[Schema Thing]

5. just saw it too; and you're right, Johnson is not made out to be a bad guy

that said, it's real, living history, and the key points should be accurate. So to the extent they aren't, I'm a little irritated. But Johnson is portrayed as on the right side of history, and not by accident, he wants to be, and he cares to be, and he takes steps to make it so.

[HeiressofBickworth]

6. Johnson was a complex man

He was on the right side of civil and voting rights, but completely wrong on the escalation of the Vietnam War. I'm old enough to remember the chant, "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today."

[Number9Dream]

7. BBC News - Critics say Selma gets MLK and LBJ wrong

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-30704490

"In truth, the partnership between LBJ and MLK on civil rights is one of the most productive and consequential in American history," Updegrove writes.

"Updegrove cites a 1965 taped phone conversation between the pair, where Johnson encourages King to publicise the worst example of voter suppression as a way to prompt a national discussion and boost legislation being considered by Congress."

"Zeitz says that the film is "oddly patronising" in the way it deals with black student activists. Often, he says, they are seen as well-meaning hotheads often working against the movement. Instead, the reality is that King co-operated with student groups because they were unconventional, not in spite of that."