Originally Posted by LaneSig (Post 2078395)

But the problem is, just because it was a "big part of people's lives" doesn't mean it was a big part of someone else's life experiences; even it was such a huge event in other's experiences.

Originally Posted by LaneSig (Post 2078395)

Truly not being sarcastic, but people are raised by other people who may not emphasize certain aspects of history or other experiences. I honestly don't remember much being taught about the Civil Rights movement or the effects of Jim Crow laws when I was growing up.

Originally Posted by LaneSig (Post 2078395)

My point (and I do have one) is that you seem to be taking offense with someone....

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 2078396)

I am not talking about life experiences.



I consider that pathetic.



No.

Originally Posted by LaneSig (Post 2078397)

Point, can I introduce you to Dr. Phil? She seems to not have seen you.

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 2078398)

Actually, I was explaining my original post to rhoyaltempest. You chose to share your thoughts and I responded to them. Go away now.

Originally Posted by LaneSig (Post 2078395)

Sorry about that. I thought you would be interested learning about the experiences of other people instead of ignoring them. Because of, you know, how pathetic it is to ignore what other people's experiences and opinions are. Enjoy your day.

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 2078402)

You assumed that you were in the position to teach something. The irony of that in THIS thread is amusingly overwhelming. Save the lessons for when you are the most knowledgeable person in the room.

Originally Posted by LaneSig (Post 2078409)

I've never assumed anything in life except that water is wet. I would never claim to be the most knowledgeable on anything.

Originally Posted by LaneSig (Post 2078409)

My point was that the original poster is now interested in an aspect of history that she had never learned about and that is a good thing.

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 2078411)

You consider that a good thing. I do not. We are back to the beginning. Great.

Originally Posted by CrimsonTide4 (Post 2078176)

I read the book when it was first released and didn't recall anything of critical importance missing.

Originally Posted by Senusret I (Post 2078380)

:) Amen.

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 2078281)

I don't consider this movie to be just entertainment. There is too much meaning behind it to be merely entertaining.



The commercials are making the movie seem more feel good (smartass Black helpers are funny enough for a commercial or two).. That's how they are able to get people to be excited about this movie. They take bits and pieces of the movie even if they misrepresent the movie. Meaning, white people (who will be the main supporters of this film) would not see this movie if they didn't make it seem funny and lighthearted.

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 2078387)

I didn't say I was happy for that.

I said "...to have the privilege to now be interested in an era...." That means it is a sign of privilege (the same type of privilege that allows some people to pretend that movies like this could only be entertainment) to be oblivious about something that has been such a big part of people's lives. That isn't a good thing and it doesn't make me happy. I consider it pathetic.

ETA: For those who don't know, "sad," "pathetic," or "a sign of privilege," in this instance is not about taking offense with someone. It is about overarching dynamics that span across individuals; and what is embedded in these dynamics. Newsflash: Topics pertaining to race and ethnicity do not require taking offense with someone.

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest (Post 2078447)

Yeah, that's crazy to me that anyone could consider such stories as pure entertainment (especially when it's a reflection of a true story - Stockett's family).