Well, I'll add still another objection to the OP. He also said the character of the father "had an affair" with a black woman. No, he raped her. There's quite a big difference.
There is fantasy, and there is perceived reality, and truth lies somewhere between fantasy and perceived reality.
Repeating fantasy is easy and fun, repeating perceived reality is a lesser form of fantasy with a bit of horror interjected, but the truth takes a great deal of character because it depends on facts with absolutely nothing added or extrapolated.
Over time, oral histories deviate towards fantasy and away from perceived reality. Rarely does oral history reflect truth because truth is usually boring and very rarely does it support the agenda of the speaker.
So, because of family dynamics, and society's demands and implications, and because of human frailty, and the urge to copulate, and reactions of friends and relatives, and human pride and the need to be accepted and not spurned, or criticized, or shunned, people react various ways to various situations.
IOW, while it may serve YOUR agenda to say that black women were "raped" it may just as well have served THEIR agenda to also say they were raped. Think about that for a while!
In fact, all white men are NOT monsters who go insane when they see black women and can't help themselves. In fact, all black women are NOT virtuous and could very well have been "flirty" with white men (sort of wanting to tempt someone who is not supposed to be interested in you).
Yes, the odds would tell us that SOME black females were truly raped. However, it is just as likely that those who were NOT raped, would 100% say that they had been raped.
By the same token, SOME white females have truly been raped by black men. However, it is just as likely that those who were NOT raped, would 100% say they had been raped.
And, as usual, lies and liars hurt everyone.
Before you jump on a band wagon that condemns ALL WHITE MEN and exonerates ALL BLACK WOMEN, you really should consider human nature. Some folks are nice; others are stinkers. Some folks are honest; others are liars. And, sometimes, even usually good people can get themselves into a situation where, to save face, they lie!
It is a wiser path to attempt to figure out who is telling the truth and who is lying and STOP considering the color of their skin. Skin color gives absolutely ZERO indication of character.
Attempting to equate skin color and character has gotten us to this point, which is not a great place. Having to justify lies by blacks is just as crazy-making as having to justify lies by whites. And, having to justify vile actions by blacks is just as embarrassing as having to justify vile actions by whites.
Therefore, people of character must hold ALL PEOPLE responsible for the words they say and the deeds they do and stop pretending that it "makes a difference" if they "look like us." A liar is a liar, a thief is a thief, a failure is a failure, a skunk is a skunk, and his/her color does not excuse, or vindicate, their manipulative lies or vile deeds. Our society will be delivered and strengthened by those of character of ALL colors. Taking sides based on skin color is absolutely bone-headed. It only means that one can continue a vendetta, which takes zero brains and a loyalty to stupidity.
reply
share
jjjunob
9 years ago
Camargue, you make good points, and you write well, and all that . . . but what I can't understand is why you chose to post those points in reply to my post. I said NOTHING EVEN REMOTELY SIMILAR to "all white men are monsters" or any of the other racist nonsense you apparently attribute to me (assuming I am the "you" you are addressing) in your post.
In fact, I said nothing about race or about any groups of people. You correctly quoted me: "Well, I'll add still another objection to the OP. He also said the character of the father "had an affair" with a black woman. No, he raped her. There's quite a big difference." It seems to me that anyone with even the most elementary level of reading comprehension could have no doubt that I was speaking about exactly ONE specific situation involving exactly one specific INDIVIDUAL.
But no--you took what I said and projected all kinds of other nonsense onto it. Of course you're free to post whatever you like, but as I (coincidentally) said to another poster just a few posts above: In the future, I'd appreciate it if you would be self-aware enough to take responsibility for your own beliefs and refrain from misrepresenting what I have said. Thank you.
As far as there being any question as to whether it was rape: It's been two years since I saw that movie, and I don't remember every detail, but as I recall the girl/woman in question was not only very young (possibly a minor? like I said, I don't remember every detail) at the time, she was also a servant in Duvall's character's father's household. She was not in a position to give/withhold consent. It was rape.
reply
share