MovieChat Forums > The Butler (2013) Discussion > The first time a white man ever stuck hi...

The first time a white man ever stuck his neck out for us?


Cecil said that when Ike sent troops to Little Rock, it was the first time he ever saw a white man stick his neck out for us?

I realize he said that "he saw", but it brings up a question I've thought of lately.

With Ferguson, etc. I keep hearing about slavery and the evils of the white man, etc. And, I thought of something - that many, many white men died in our worst war ever in order to end slavery. Did they not?

Wouldn't that be sticking out their necks? And, do blacks ever talk about that as the flip side to evil whites and slavery?

reply

The phrase was the first time he ever saw. He was not alive during the civil war. So it was theoretically accurate--regardless of whether the real life version of the character said this or not.

reply

Yeah,I addressed that part, and was using it as a basis for my question.

reply

Slavery wasn't the only and certainly no where near the primary reason for the civil war.

reply

You've got to be kidding me. States rights, I'm sure.

reply

Slavery, by constant Confederate declaration, was in fact the reason for secession. There's no room for speculation here; Southern statesmen made speech after public, archived, still-available speech on exactly that point.

reply

It's just blind race propaganda. The only people who actually fall for it are the complete dick dumb of society and the extreme racists - ie, most of the people who somehow liked this heap of trash.

reply

To be honest-there SHOULD be a historical narrative on how blacks and whites depended on each other,often forming caring relationships, though always in secret.
Every time we see historical movies based on the civil rights movement, trying to understand the race predicament concerning our 300 year old country - its always black and white - hate against oppression. This nation dearly imploded in on itself because millions of whites HATED slavery with all their souls and hearts, hence the Civil War. It boggles my mind on how the narrative of black and whites caring enough to fight for each other has never surfaced - EVEN THOUGH there is abundant proof in our history books. Hence my book, fiction, based on one type of relationship "The River" 2016

reply

That's a great post. Pop this up again when your book comes out. If you reply to my post, I'll get an email.

reply

Yes, Eisenhower, a Republican, was the first president to bring the first piece of civil rights legislation, in 1957, since the reconstruction era. Btw, JFK voted against the civil rights act of 1957 as a senator, but nobody mentions that, especially not in this biased liberal cesspool of a movie or in the leftist driven education system.

reply

Didn't know that about JFK. What was his reasoning?

reply

The North fought the South because the South was super wealthy and didn't give them a fair cut of anything. I'm positive if cotton could grow up North like it did down South, slavery would be legal up North as well. It was indeed a war over the North's jealousy of the South's wealth.

reply

Hahahaha - do you write your own history books?

reply

It's honest history. It's very well documented and even black yankee soldiers were segregated and fought under different jurisdictions from white yankee soldiers. Overall the push for abolition of slavery was really an end of the the advantage of the cotton the south had over the north. Real history sucks doesn't it? You do know that in present times the most Klans groups are concentrated in upstate New York?

reply

I'm in Upstate NY. I've never heard of one Klan meeting ever here.

No matter how twisted your hypothetical history is, it doesn't even matter. What we do know is that Northern white soldiers sacrificed their lives to end slavery.

reply

More like the North couldn't stand the economical advantages of the South and how they couldn't get their share. You know Lincoln owned slaves.

From Lincoln's own mouth:

“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”


http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2009/02/was_lincoln_a_racist.html

Like I said if cotton could grow up North as it did down South or the South shared their wealth via stocks which weren't yet available the Civil War wouldn't have happened.....

reply

I read the entire article, thanks for posting that. Lincoln was a complicated man of his time, he wrestled with his conscience greatly, and luckily, over time he became educated enough on the issues to carry out our founding father's wishes of equality, over his own contemporary misgivings. That's what we always need, a president with a conscience who understands the needs of the people enough to outweigh his/her own prejudices.

reply

Lincoln was a complicated man of his time, he wrestled with his conscience greatly, and luckily, over time he became educated enough on the issues to carry out our founding father's wishes of equality, over his own contemporary misgivings.



Sorry to break it to you but first of all, if the founding fathers truly wished for equality between the races then blacks wouldn't have been held in bondage for another 100 yrs. In fact those founding fathers fought in the Revolutionary War for their own freedom and one of those freedoms involved the right to own slaves. The British were attempting to abolish slavery and that began a conflict between both the British Empire and The North American Colonies (rebels). In order to prevent The British from abolishing slavery in the colonies, the colonies decided to rebel and become independent from The British, which led to the Revolutionary War and eventually led to the colonies forming the U.S of The Americas.



Also, another misconception is that Lincoln ended slavery. Lincoln did not end slavery. No one man in this country holds that much power. The US is a democracy. There aren't any kings and queens here, only a president and the president can't make those types of decisions. The Confederacy losing the war is what won the slaves their freedom. The reason Lincoln's name is synonymous with the abolishment of slavery is because he signed the Emancipation Proclamation, which by law, he was required to do, since he was in office at the time. In fact, a lot of slaves just walked away from the plantation before the Emancipation Proclamation was even signed because at some point, everybody knew the south was losing. It wasn't like they just woke up on Jan 1, 1865 and found out that over night Lincoln had decided that he would free them. It was like any other law that's passed, they already knew about it before it actually went into effect but the Proclamation made it official. That's why the confederacy ultimately surrendered. The Union had already destroyed most of their resources and assets (etc, seized their property, burned down their plantation and crops, along with their live stock and even destroyed most of their records) and with them now taking away their slaves, there was nothing left to fight for.







I woke up this way...

reply



What we got here is... failure to communicate!


reply

What do you mean the South didn't "give them a fair cut" of anything? Before and after the war, the North and South were, and are, a single country with a single national GDP measured by a collective economic output. And socially speaking, I think northern Americans were more well-off than their southern counterparts.

You're saying the North actually went to war with the South over its jealousy of its cotton industry, but didn't the Confederacy declare war on the Union, not the other way around? Even if your jealousy theory was correct, it would only make sense if the South was a separate country in the first place; otherwise, the United States, north and south, share the same national economic output, as mentioned above.

Conspiracy theories aside, the Civil War was the result of over a decade of tension between northern and southern states, mainly over states rights (the Fugitive Slave Act and the Kansas-Nebraska Act particularly intensifying the tension), along with cultural differences, one of them being the acceptance of slavery in the South as opposed to the North.

reply

I believe the qualifier "he saw" is the key. It made a huge impression on him.

Whites fought for black civil rights right alongside black people, as you can see both in history and the movie. If anyone believes all white people are evil, well, that's just plain ignorance. Films like this help tell the stories of history, hopefully in a way where people can gain empathy for each other.

reply

As stated times before, the civil war was not fought strictly on the basis of slavery. It was more or less that southern life was much different than Northern life and the South wanted to preserve it's way and become independent. Lincoln used the emancipation proclimation to his advantage to get blacks in the north and south to fight in the war. All Lincoln was trying to do was to keep the country together by any means necessary.

We're there some who were fighting strictly for abolisment? Sure, mostly the blacks and a few whites. But racism was still extremely strong in the North during after and until this day in all parts of the country. To say Lincoln stuck his neck out for Blacks is preposterous, he did what he saw fit in maintaining a united country.


Do not listen to your school books children, wait until college and then you will find out the truth.

And by the way, the "deadliest war FOUGHT" wasn't deadly because of straight up casualties from fighting. A soldierwas more likely to die from disease or the elements than from an opposing soldier. And more likely to die from the effects of a gunshot wound then the bullet itself. If medical science had been more advanced and doctors hadn't been cutting off limbs of awake and aware soldiers with a rusty saw, many less deaths would have occurred.

reply

Let me guess. You're currently a college history major?

Do those reasons make them any less dead, BTW?

reply