MovieChat Forums > To Kill a Mockingbird (1962) Discussion > Conservative solutions for the impotent ...

Conservative solutions for the impotent Peck caracter


Boo Hardley saves the day by shoving a knife into the predator. Boo with the intelligence of the average republican eliminates the problem, ( simple problem, simple solution, no matter how gruesome). Then the other conservative, the Yorick like sheriff prevents the impotent fumbling Atticus from wrecking Boo's simple existence by proceding with typical liberal legal malarky which would have destroyed hero Boo. Liberals love Atticus and this movie, (and so do I, and the movie) but only conservatives save the day. I never thought of this before, any comments? Don't forget, Atticus could not protect his children, Boo could.

reply

Liberal Atticus protected his children quite well by expertly shooting the rabid dog.

reply

Yes - the "average republican" will seek to find a solution, while liberals only complain. Atticus was not liberal - he worked instead of being on government assistance, provided a job for Cal, was a devoted family man, and believed in the Law.

reply

Atticus was properly trained in the use of firearms as a boy, something frowned upon by a segment of the population. I suppose I would just send my kids inside to protect them and call the cops. Too much chance of getting in trouble walking onto a town street and shooting a rabid dog.

reply

Where I live, if the Conservatives really believed in the Law, they would be following the speed limit out on the roads. Unfortunately, many of them don't.

Greetings from the most Conservative part of Canada!

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

reply

You're either too ignorant, too stupid or a liar who actually knows the bloodsucking and bloodletting Conservative drains the treasury through corporate welfare, unnecessary military binging for profitable wars and tax breaks wealthy an-American conservatives benefit from.

~ Native Angeleno

reply

With the exception of one or two, your post is the most ignorant I've seen on these boards.

reply

Conservatives perpetuated segregation and Jim Crow laws in the South and conservative Klan members went around intimidating, beating and murdering blacks. Conservative white jurors would never convict a white defendant of murdering a black man. White conservatives opposed school integration and ending segregation. White conservatives supported so called, States Rights," and when conservative Geirge Wallace stood in the doorway of the University to stop four blacks from enrolling at the state university, liberal John Kennedy nationalized the Alabama National guard to remove conservative Wallace from the doorway and allow the four black students to enroll.
Earlier in the 1950's, moderate Republican Eisenhower nationalized the Arkansas National guard as to protect black children as they enrolled in the previously all white high school at Little Rock. The conservative governor opposed integration and there were white conservative mobs outside the school threatening to harm the black students.
Whie conservatives in the south beat the Freedom Riders and later bombed the church in Biemingham which killed four young black girls.
White conservatives in the south opposed voting right for blacks.
All the civil rights progress in the south was the result if the actions of white and black liberals

reply

No, you began this post by saying Atticus engaged in typical liberal malarkey and could not protect his children. I pointed to an instance where he did protect his children, and you countered that you suppose you could have stayed in the house. Unlike you, Atticus didn't. There is no doubt in my mind, had Atticus the liberal been in the woods that night, he would certainly have defended his kids. I am having difficulty understanding your point. Didn't Atticus protect his children or not in your opinion?

reply

Actually, I said I would send my children inside. If a policeman had handed me a rifle and said shoot the rabid dog I would have considered it. The small point I was trying to make was that any private citizen who picked up a rifle to kill a rabid dog on a town street might be in for some legal problems and most wouldn't risk that. (remember the dog wasn't threatening anybody directly)

But Atticus wasn't in the woods that night....simply blind to the threat despite ample warning(spitted on)before his kids were 9/11ed, but Boo was on guard, and apparently was always on guard...which actually is a little unnerving

BTW, is Atticus a liberal by today's standards....if he had gone on to be a supreme court judge where would have been on things?

reply

Seek Help.

reply

You miss a large point of the story that is clearly detailed in the book. This was a small Southern town where people knew and protected each other's children. While Bob Ewell did threaten Atticus Finch, the concept of harming a child in that society was unthinkable, even for a low life like Ewell. The theme of small town innocence is much more pronounced in Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood." In fact, the work, which Harper Lee assisted with research, is still considered a landmark piece of non-fiction for its use of fictional style and, for that time, brutally graphic description of the murder of four people.

"To Kill A Mockingbird" is based on a trial Harper Lee's father worked on during her childhood, with obvious fictional components. While the Civil Rights message is clearly evident, the theme that wasn't explored was how much Southern businesses suffered because of the overt racism throughout the region. It's true racism existed in the north (and still does), it was in covert form, something Martin Luther King, Jr. struggled to understand and work through.

As for killing a rapid dog, at that time in history people were allowed to kill rapid animals on their properties due to the fact county and city police forces were thinly staffed, there were virtually no veterinarians in small towns and first responder services were non-existent. Hell, there were limited medical staff of any kind in towns like that and if they were practicing they were overwhelmed and didn't have time to assist with animal control.

Lastly, many groups – conservative and liberal – consider Atticus Finch as the fictional hero of the 20th Century.

By the way, the word is "Character."

reply

I like your comments, they made me think and reconsider.....though your last line was a bit petty, wouldn't you agree.

reply

Care to comment on anything happening in the last 6o years?

reply

Was the question for me or the OP?

reply

Liberals who want to move "forward", but cannot as they live in the past, never learning from it.

reply

Actually JFK was not a liberal, and, in fact, his personal views of African-Americans, as well as those of "moderate" Ike were racist and far less generous than those of "conservative" Nixon who was raised in a Quaker family. But Kennedy was an adroit politician.

You say: "All the civil rights progress in the south was the result of the actions of white and black liberals" Well, not exactly, most African Americans in the early 60s were personally very conservative and religious. Sad but true, while 100 years of extreme violence and racism and Jim Crow could not destroy the black family unit, only 30 years of the white liberal great society managed to do the job in no uncertain terms(by about 1995 "mission accomplished"). The voting rights act was the key to equality, the "Great Society" tagged on a couple years later has been a disaster(for everybody, BTW, any 17 yr olds pushing baby carriages around in your neighborhood?). Can you suggest any other reason for the destruction of the black family unit? Are whites perhaps more racist and violent then 50 years ago? Don't think so.

"Extreme" republicans in the 1840s, 50s & 60s were the driving force toward black emancipation. And many of these men were extremely conservative. In fact, Grant, late in his presidency, went to congress to call for troops to crush southern attempts to dismantle reconstruction. Congressional democrats and weak kneed republicans rebuffed him so the Grant "surge" never took place. If extreme republicans had got their way Jim Crow would never have come to be.

reply

JFK was not liberal? Listen to this speech http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3oY93doosg

reply

The Klan was founded by Democrats, Democrats resisted freeing the slaves, and Republicans were behind the Civil Rights act. Spout your liberal propaganda elsewhere.

Microfishe! MICROFISHE!! MI...CRO...FISSHHE!!!

reply

It needs to be pointed out that Republicans in those times were not the same as today's Republicans. The same goes for Democrats. "Liberal" has not always been synonymous with "Democrat" nor have Republicans always been so socially conservative. The party names are meaningless in this context and seem like an irrelevant excuse to factionalize. It isn't so black and white.

Atticus, by the standard of his time and place, was socially progressive.

reply

Yeah I hear that all the time from those on the left that wish to marginalize the right. The fact is that the left changed their message to appear more concerned than they were. While their political policies changed from overt racism to thinly veiled economic enslavement. I don't agree with all things socially conservative, but I do agree with all things fiscally conservative. The fiscal part is where the left is doing the most damage and that has extreme consequences socially.

However, to make a political issue out of a movie like this is ridiculous.

reply

And that's all you know about it, don't you. The two parties have switched roles, neither resembling what they were decades and centuries ago. You can bleat what you've heard on Rush all you want, but it won't change the fact that TODAY'S racist is more apt to be Republican, while those working for equality and a level playing field are Democrats. You really think that any self respecting Southern white man would align themselves with the party of Lincoln? Not likely. They are what became the Dixiecrats. Segregationists, all. Do you wonder why the "solid south " is now Republican? Jim Crow is alive and well and voting straight right.

This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.

reply

This is arrant, Orwellian nonsense. Spare us your self-righteousness, your venting and your selective false retelling of history. You don't get to define "conservative" as your bad guy responsible for all the racist evil in America. Most conservatives today are Republicans, who were historically responsible for opposing the old, white racist structure in the South that set up Jim Crow laws, the KKK, and the lynchings. (BTW, the lynchings were only possible after the Democrat white racists passed gun control laws prohibiting blacks from owning guns after the Civil War.) Each of those were done by white Democrats. The Civil Rights Act finally passed in Congress was uniformly opposed by white Southern Democrats, who were the majority power structure in the South at the time. Northern Democrats and Republicans were responsible for its passage.

Go spread your lies somewhere else.

reply

And all of those conservatives in the south were right thinking "Boll Weevil" Democrats.

The "liberal" President John Kennedy initiated our involvement in Vietnam by sending advisors. The liberal President Lyndon Johnson increased our involvement and sent in heavy ground forces.

The "liberal" President Jimmy Carter "bailed out" Chrysler and the "liberal" President Barack Obama "bailed out" General Motors.

So, stew on your labels awhile and think about it.

reply

Your post is so full of ignorance. Republicans supported every civil rights act since the Civil War. Segregationist Democrats were NOT conservatives, but liberals.

On what crazy pretext do you say they were "conservative"? Because they wanted to keep the segregationist status quo? Conservatives wanted to go back to the pre-Plessy v Ferguson era before they had segregation. If they were segregationist Democrats, they damn sure weren't conservative.

reply

What the hell are you talking about ? The Democrats were the ones trying to keep the status quo in the south, rejecting civil rights legislation into the 1960s !!!
Yeah, thats the damn truth. Either your one of these young skulls full of mush that bye
into the liberal lies (in which case. I guess your 'lies' are somewhat understandable as
public school teachers ....well, its understandable. But, if you're an older balding pony tail marxist lying liberal theres NO excuse for you and your BS !! I suspect its the later but I have no way of knowing. In any case, if its the former, have fun learning the truth now that you've been pointed in the right direction. If your of the smelly, ponytailed
old school hippie type, eat excrement and expire - the USA and the world really, will be better off with out your lying azz. Now go take a bath, you stink !

reply

The first civil rights legislation of 1957 was pushed through the Democratic controlled Senate by Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat.

reply

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn sometimes. Ironman is correct. The Democrat Party opposed civil rights legislation consistently until it learned how many blacks were coming to the polls in the sixties. The Dems have always been the party of political expediency, not principle.

reply

And Republicans were pro civil rights, correct? So how many civil rights bills were proposed by a Republican Senator or the President between 1952 and 1954 when they controlled both?

reply

There were no civil rights acts proposed by either party after 1875 until the Republicans proposed the 1957 Act. Eisenhower fought northern and southern Democrats to get it passed. He even sent fed. troops to enforce it (for the first time in the 20th Century) & to protect 9 school children trying to integrate. The House voted -- 167 Repubs. for, 19 against; the Dems. voted 118 for and 107 against. No Senate Repubs. voted against, but Dem. Senators voted 18 against.

Then Democrat Strom Thurmond gave the longest filibuster (against) in the history of the Senate (2+ days), and Lyndon Johnson brought the bill to committee to "kill it" and in the process rendered it so compromised as to make it virtually ineffective.

So, in 1960, Eisenhower introduced "the 1960 Civil Rights Act" to repair the damage Johnson and the Dems. had done to the '57 Act. It was, essentially, a voting rights act. Again no Repub. voted against it, but 18 Dems. did.

It passed and was so effective in helping to increase black voter turnout that the Dems. gave in and mounted the greatest political propaganda campaign in history -- convincing people that they were the party of civil rights from the start. They, then, got on the "new" bandwagon with Johnson, and the "1964 Civil Rights Act" was underway. Johnson said that with the passage of this Act, we'll have those n*#@//s voting Democrat for the next 100 years -- or words to that effect. . . I guess he was right.

Expediency over principle -- as usual.

reply

Interesting. Then perhaps you can explain to me why the southern Democrats walked out of the 1948 Democratic convention and formed a third party (with Thurmond as the nominee) for that election.

Could it be that the walk out stemmed from the insertion of a civil rights plank in the party platform. No, that can't be, those racist Dems (Hubert Humphrey who wrote that plank was a racist, wasn't he?) would never do that!

reply

Getting a little far-afield from your original question aren't we?

"Then perhaps you can explain to me why . . ."

Hmmm ... a better question might be for you to explain to me why you don't do your own research?

reply

Well said - a good history lesson for those who prefer to forget the civil rights struggles of the 50's and 60s.

reply

I'm not sure if you are being sardonic or what, but if your post is serious (I kniw that it's old, but I just came across it), I would just like to point out how wrong it is. If you were to replace all the incidences of 'conservative' with 'liberal Democrats', then your post would be accurate. The KKK was founded by Democrats, Civil Rights Act of 1964 was pushed thru by Republicans and opposed by Democrats, Civil Rights Act of 1957 was proposed by Republicans, Jim Crow laws were passed in the vastly Democratic south, the fire hoses and snarling dogs used against the civil rights marchers weer in the hands of Democrats. I could go on and on, but you should study your own history, maybe you'll learn something.

reply

Was there any reason to start a political debate on a movie board? There's an entire section of IMDB dedicated to that exact subject. IMDB is vitriolic enough without encouraging people to bare their party politic claws.

reply

I agree. I never like threads like this. To me, trying to paint Boo as a conservative shows that someone is trying to put their agenda on top of things. That character could not be further from having any social or political views. He was just doing what any decent person who was there would try to do. Today, those kids would never be walking home alone, but times were different. Also, Atticus doesn't want Boo to be in trouble. Wasn't it he who said it was a clear case of defense? Worrying about the potential legal ramifications is only what most responsible people would do, especially a lawyer . All this shows is he respects the law. Again, he is a lawyer.

Lastly, Atticus is a crack shot and would have defended his children, had he been there. He got rid of Bob when he was there.

reply

We're more used to spelling "conservative" which is, as you may have already observed, the same thing when understood as -- "having moral vigor or firmness". Of course, it can also be understood to mean -- "the town character" when referring to a liberal. But . . . my guess is it's a typo.

reply

How do you know Atticus was Liberal? Did you see him cast a ballot?

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Five 'ill get ya ten, lola, every member of that jury was a Democrat. Beginning long before the depression, and long after, Democrats, Northern and Southern, were the great defenders of segregation and Jim Crow. It changed when the Dems. took a look at the number of blacks who were voting in the 50's and 60's. . . Like many, many others -- you've been taken in.

reply