To me, Empire is undoubtedly the best film of the trilogy.

The original Star Wars was a great film that, together with Jaws (as kb mentioned), helped usher in the age of the blockbuster. It brought ground breaking special effects, a new visionary universe, and some of the most iconic scenes and music to ever hit the big screen.

But as steve and others mentioned in the last thread, it was plagued by cheesy dialogue, hammy acting, a basic, thin plot, and, in my opinion at least, a lack of ambition with the camera. Star Wars undoubtedly had a huge influence on cinema, but so did Seven Samurai, Citizen Kane, 2001, Lawrence of Arabia, 8 1/2, and The Godfather (as well as many others), which all preceded it.

Then comes Empire.

The first aspect of Empire that sets it apart from the original is the huge difference in budget and freedom. The production values for Empire dwarf those of Star Wars. The sets are more detailed, the costumes are more modern, and the basic picture quality is vastly improved from the original. Empire makes the Star Wars universe feel more real and lived-in than the original, and that is largely because the production.

The acting is far better in Empire, too. Luke is still whiny, but it's for narrative purposes, and his whiny scenes come off less hammy in Empire then the chuckle-worthy dialog in IV ("But I was supposed to go to Toshi Station to pick up some power converters!"). Fischer also steps it up in Empire, making Leia less shrill while still retaining her strength and leadership. I also felt that Jones' voice work with Vader was improved, and that the voice mirrored the action in scenes better.

The camerawork also stands out in Empire compared to the original. I said in the last thread that the original didn't have very good shots, and while I stick by that for the most part, I will concede that when I watched and paid more attention to it last weekend, the film did have many good shots, but only in the first act and the last with the attack on the Death Star. I will say the scenes in the Death Star interior didn't use the camera very well.

Empire, however, still excels.

There are few scenes in the original shot as well as the Wampa cave scene or the Carbon Freezing Chamber. That's not even getting into the skillful work done to capture the Asteroid Field Scene or Luke vs. Vader.

Visually, Empire is a step above IV, and that really helps sell the world and ensure the saga would be respected for years to come.

However, my favorite aspect of Empire is its story.

Empire's plot is different from most sequels nowadays. It scales it back. It focuses less on a galactic conflict and more on the personal conflicts that tie these characters together. This helps make Empire a much more focused, yet deeper experience than the other films in my eyes (though I also love 2/3 of Jedi).

They were able to do this by basing the entire plot of this film around a single character: Darth Vader.

Empire, more than any of the others, is Darth Vader's film.

Star Wars introduced him as an iconic villain, but he was always leashed by Tarkin and never had much personal interaction with the main protagonists other than Kenobi. Yet, we knew there was more to him to explore.

This film made Vader the terrifying force he's remembered for.

Vader is on a mission throughout Empire as made apparent from the very beginning with the title crawl. He's out to get Luke Skywalker, and he will kill enemy or ally to accomplish his goal. The way he disposes of his admirals, the way he easily handles Han on Bespin, the way he shows no care toward Han or Leia, seeing them only as tools to trap Luke, the way he apathetically tests the carbon freeze on Han with no regard for his life, and the way he toys with Luke during their duel all serve to show how committed Vader is to capturing Luke, how ruthless he is in his methods, and how powerful of a force he is to be reckoned with. And while these scenes enhance Vader as a villian, they also give Vader so much more depth when you view them knowing the twist. He's ruthless and committed, but he's doing so in pursuit of his son, his only link to his humanity after he gave up on being a "good man" years ago.

Plus there's that dialog. Vader (and Yoda) will always have the best lines in the trilogy to me.

"You have failed me for the last time, Admiral."

"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

Chilling lines that cement Vader as a great, terrifying Villain.

"The force is with you, young Skywalker, but you are not a Jedi yet."

"All too easy."

"Impressive. Most impressive."

Great commentary during the duel that expresses Vader's overwhelming power compared to Luke and also expresses his respect for Luke (and a bit of pride he has for his son).

These lines are not Shakespearean, but the way they are delivered, and the scenes they are delivered in help really flesh out Vader's character. His comments during the lightsaber duel make the fight more compelling and personal. It adds emotional weight to their duel, weight that was unfortunately missing from the myriad fights in the prequels.

Then there's that great twist that will forever live in cinematic history, a twist which makes everything bigger yet also smaller and more personal in this universe. ("No, I am your father.") When Vader later says "Bring my shuttle", you can hear the pain and disappointment in his voice as he thinks he has again lost his only son.

His humanity finally comes out at the very end when he is pleading with Luke to join him. Pleading. I mean that moment when the Falcon hits lightspeed, and Vader looks away from the Window, back again for a second, and then finally turns away? What an emotional scene! And only told through head movements!

By making the central conflict revolve around Vader, we're able to get a closer look at our other main characters.

Luke's whinyness and impatience now have a real narrative purpose, showcasing how tempting the Dark Side is and how green Luke is. The twist reaffirms this and also makes this conflict mean so much more for him. He's facing the former Jedi he thought was dead, his father, and his place in the universe has been elevated to an importance he hadn't realized (even after destroying the Death Star).

Han develops a protective relationship toward Luke (look at that look he gives Luke before the battle of Hoth, look at how quickly he gets angered when Lando tells them Vader is trying to trap Luke, and just look at the very beginning when he saves Luke's life). He's also fleshed out as the charmer and lover, through his pursuit of Leia. We seen Han as a more respected member of the Rebel Alliance in this film, and the calm acceptance of his fate is the noblest Han ever is.

Leia becomes warmer through her relationship with Han and the care she expresses for her friends. And her leadership shines in scenes like the the prelude to the Battle for Hoth, the escape from Bespin, and her decision to take command and get Luke.

Empire also adds more characters to the Universe that help flesh it out and make it feel larger, even while the plot has a smaller focus.

Yoda is one of the best characters ever. His explanations of the force capture your imagination, and his change from a slapstick puppet to a Jedi master is such a masterful surprise. And that dialog!

"Wars not make one great!"

"That is why you fail."

Seriously. Props to Frank Oz and the team that made Yoda so compelling and interesting. He really comes off as a wise master of ancient magic.

Boba Fett also inspired many fans, though his promise was short lived. We finally get to meet the Emperor for once in Empire, and Lando really rounds out the Rebel cast.

The music is also just at good as in the original. The Asteroid Field song, the Imperial March, Leia's Theme, and Yoda's theme are as iconic in Star Wars as the opening theme and the dual sun theme. And the special effects are fantastic with the Battle for Hoth being one of the most iconic moments of the entire saga.

I've already typed too much and not even covered all I could about what makes this one work so well, but there is just so much to this film that makes it great to my eyes.

I'll just leave with a list of the iconic moments that, IMO, make the film the best of the saga.

The Wampa Cave

The Battle of Hoth

The Asteroid Field

The Cave of Dagobah

Yoda Lifting The Ship

The Carbon Freezing Chamber

Luke vs. Vader

Oh and the great dialog that runs through the film (not just for Vader). Yoda in particular has some of the best lines in the trilogy. And there's of course the many great lines delivered by Han in this ("Never tell me the odds!" or "I know.")

Bah. This is the best. It may not be the happiest, but it makes the world so much bigger while making Luke's story so much more personal. It makes Vader a true central character, and sets up one of the best philosophical, emotional, and personal battles in cinema with the fight for his/Luke's souls.

PS: I forgot to add this, but seriously. Watch Chewy in the infamous kissing scene with Luke and Leia and then imagine what he's saying since he knows their history! I kinda cracked myself up with that.

It was a great performance. Lloyd's 50 yard goal made me jump out of my seat!

Roller Coaster Tycoon and Command and Conquer: Red Alert took away hours of my life as a kid. Loved those games.

I really, really hope so.

I'm like the hipster Reddit refugee. Came a month ago looking for greener pastures and found I really dig the community here and the way the site works.

If you're not from that crowd, then welcome! Hope you find this place as cozy as I did.

The others can go to Voat.

I have a funny feeling most the people complaining about this didn't even start going to Reddit until 2011. I mean enough say so in the comments of their announcement thread.

It's funny because those same people drove me to seek alternatives and find Hubski. Maybe more will come here because of this. But I'd be happier if those that do aren't the ones that subscribe to /r/fatpeoplehate, /r/coontown, and the like.

This is due to the disbelief that a woman could not have been the perpetrator of this type of crime and the male must be intimidating the woman to the point that the woman is attacking in self-defense

Sounds like they're a victim of male/female gender roles. Sounds perfectly compatible with feminism to me.

EDIT: What would the Duluth Model have to do with the reactions of individual police officers as looked at in this study?

Muted for calling that out? But I can still edit!

Muahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I thought muting was for people who wanted a "hugbox" and "safe spaces?" And why so hostile? Hmm?

My favorite sci-fi movies are 2001, Her, and Blade Runner. 2001 is just one of the best movies of all time and I love watching it. Her really resonated with me on my second viewing and is a very touching look at loneliness and the value of connecting with others. Blade Runner is a more exciting movie than those two but is still pretty deep with its exploration of humanity. Plus, it's hard not to love Batty's monologue.

Akira is my favorite sci-fi anime. Brilliant animation and an interesting story keep me coming back. In my opinion, one of the best movies ever, anime or not.

My favorite apocalyptic movies include Fury Road, The Road Warrior, and Children of Men if it counts. The Mad Max series has a world that entertains me, and Children of Men is a wonderfully crafted emotional journey.

Wall-E might count as both, ha! And I sure love that movie.

You've just made me realize I don't really watch any sci-fi tv. I should probably work on that. I've seen a bit of Star Trek and enjoyed it, but I'll have to keep this thread in mind when looking for some new tv to watch next time.

The only post apocalyptic tv show I've seen has been The Walking Dead, but that show turned me away. I stopped caring. Season 3 made me quit once, then Season 4 on Netflix made me give it another chance until the past season broke my attention again. I don't know if I'll give it another shot.

Capitalism is just people producing goods and services and engaging in trades and investments.

What you're describing is a market, not capitalism. Markets aren't exclusive to capitalism. There are various types of leftist market economies.

Capitalism is distinct in that the means of production are privately owned, as dublinben said. As such, "crony capitalism" is capitalism even if some see it as distinct from laissez-faire capitalism.

Really though, crony capitalism is all that has ever existed to my knowledge. The "robber barons" of the late 19th century - early 20th century were all well connected politically and used their wealth and power to benefit themselves and their ventures. I'd argue that a society built around class hierarchies and a strong state will always lead to such relations as those with wealth and power seek to further their interests.

New to the site, but I'm a huge film nerd.

My favorite meta-movie and one of the forebearers of the genre is Federico Fellini's 8 1/2.

It follows Guido Anselmi, an Italian director who is struggling to make his next film. It's a great commentary on the difficulties of the creative process, a fantastic beginner's step into avant-garde work, a drama that does not take itself too seriously, and if you pay attention you'll notice exactly how meta the film is.

The focus on individuals when it comes to problems with the police is a red herring anyway. The police are an institution and their problems are on an institutional level.

This comment section is like entering bizarro-Reddit (or really old Reddit), and it's glorious. The community on this site is top-notch so far, and it's the main reason I'm giving this site a chance. I'm glad to see that feminism, racism, and other issues can be discussed reasonably without becoming hate fests against "SJW" conspiracies.

I need to finally get around to watching Vertigo so that's going to be my pick.

So, the theater was short on attendance today. But I decided to try again and be more proactive with notifying and reminding everyone.

But I do want some feedback for when you guys want the next stream.

I'm thinking either Monday (tomorrow) or Wedneday.

I'm also wondering whether you want 8 EST or 9 EST, cause I feel bad for west coast people. Either that or I could have the movie stream back-to-back.

Please let me know. I hope to make this work. If no one replies, I'm probably going to do it Wednesday at 9 EST, maybe with back to back showings.

Once times are decided upon, I'll leave comments tagging everyone in the morning of the showing, one hour before the showing, and at the time of the showing. Hope this helps everyone.

b_b, humanodon, ButterflyEffect, OftenBen, roysexton, iammyownrushmore, blackbootz,_refugee_, mk, eightbitsamurai, Ave, camarillobrillo, havires, kleinbl00, ecib, insomniasexx, elizabeth, nowaypablo, pigeon, rjw, StJohn, Mindwolf, Meriadoc, beezneez, longstocking, theadvancedapes, ghostoffuffle, T-Dog, jonaswildman, coffeesp00ns, bfv, cgod, mike, thenewgreen, zebra2, Kaius, Zurangatang, InkBubble, Scorpio, enjoyablethings, edricarica, subduedit, protorobot, War, Formerly_Me, joelg236, steve, rinx

These are likely people who decided on their degrees after googling how much their major was "worth."

Fuck em.

Yeah I was just telling my girlfriend that I think Paul's having a bad night.

I'm actually disappointed. I'm not a right libertarian, but I wouldn't mind having a republican candidate who was against the drug war, foreign intervention, NSA surveillance, etc.

I mean they all attack social programs anyway.

Hey, those hugs were real.

Of course, the video is an oversimplification. It is hardly trying to be more than that. This is some guy's YouTube channel, not The Journal of Political Opinion, and while the guy is definitely pushing an opinion, he's hardly acting like he's Noam effing Chomsky. He's definitely not telling everyone watching this video to go out and buy his colorful propaganda to hang around your cities and to donate to his cause. The comparison is dishonest.

It seems like everyone whose jimmies were rustled by this video had a particularly bad time with his simplified class notions of black people, poor whites, and masters. It's not that complicated of a simplification, and it's really just talk of class:

Black people = Lower Class, riddled with minorities. Poor whites = Middle Class, a more diverse group. Masters = The Upper Class

If you look at it this way, it's not that controversial. It's not like the guy thinks there's no Hispanics, Asians, etc in the country. I don't think it's meant to be literal or academic.

Nowhere in his video does the guy say the "masters" come together at this hotel every last Tuesday in May to plot how to keep everyone down. It's pretty much the implied argument me and deanSolecki have already gone over. The upper classes act in their own interests, with more access to power centers and influential people, benefiting themselves and creating inequality. He brings up the consolidation of media and growing inequality to show how the upper classes have gotten more entrenched and powerful, nothing more.

He does say that the powerful enacted Jim Crow with specific intentions, but, hey, the powerful in the South DID enact Jim Crow with specific intentions of keeping black people down and unequal. And his assertions about the "caste" system seem to be how society became organized so that black slaves were worse off than poor whites, hardly a controversial claim. He says the system benefited the "masters," not that they created it in their basements to harm black people specifically because they thought the color of their skin was icky.

What does slavery committed by Africans have to do with anything? No one says slavery is inherently a racist institution, but slavery as it was practiced in the United States became a racist institution. That's the reality. And you can't deny there were feelings of supremacy against Africans. Look at White Man's Burden. Look at the colonization of Africa in general. Look at the arguments for slavery but slaveholding Southerners.

What does the universality of societal prejudice against minorities have to do with anything? The reality is that the US has racial problems. Being the "melting pot" doesn't give the country a pass. It's quite ridiculous to even contend that it should be given one.

Black people in this country are the minority so people should point out how they are disadvantaged. It doesn't matter if, hypothetically, they would be the oppressors in bizarro world where they are the majority. The reality is they aren't, and this is how it affects them. Jim Crow targeted black people because it promoted racist institutions. The War on Drugs disproportionately targets minorities because it's a racist institution. And it is. I never worried about police rolling through when I wanted weed.

He's hardly focusing only on how problems affect the black community, as well. He talks about the indentured servitude of white people as you say, he talks about how there are more in prison than ever before, and he talks about how poverty affects the white people. His overall point was how "poor whites" and black people should ally and work for their interests against the upper classes.

Also, I've never read A People's History, but if you're referring to this chapter, I'd say your characterization of what Zinn said was quite disingenuous. He never calls him an Uncle Tom or House Negroe. He does put forth the case that MLK was favored by the establishment, and that nonviolence worked only to a point. But that's a bout a thousand times more nuanced than what you said.

The guy brought up a bunch of factoids in the middle of the video. You admit they're mostly correct. That's the most important part of the video.

Everyone is talking about the goodness of government in here. And here I am with my hand raised as an anarchist ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Libertarian socialism is what I usually use to describe my politics.

Still doing plenty of research, but that seems to be the political philosophy that resonates most with me.

8 1/2 is one of my favorite movies, and I hope everyone enjoyed it.

I remember, when I first watched it, that the camerawork and blocking (position and choreography of actors in the frame) stood out to me. It's evident in the early scene when Ride of the Valkyries is playing. The camera sweeps along giving screen space to several of the older patrons of the health resort before finally stopping at our out-of-place protagonist Guido (played wonderfully by Marcello Mastroianni). Another one of my favorite uses of the camera and actors occurs when Guido comes face to face with the actresses and producers attached to his film in the hotel lobby.

I also enjoyed the surreal, avant-garde aspects as well. Those parts really gave the film great depth and allowed for intersesting storytelling in a way that only a film could do. You can feel the influence of these scenes in movies such as Eternal Sunshine, Synechdoche, New York, and even Annie Hall.

One scene that probably sticks out to many is the famous harem sequence. I've always found this scene hilarious for many reasons. For one, it's a great use of visual storytelling to characterize Guido. It perfectly captures Guido's pig-headed attitudes toward the women in his life, most evident by the fact that the scene begins when he fantasizes that his wife and mistress are getting along (as he hilariously applauds them in the background). However, it also shows his inner need for women's love and affection. While it's certainly implied that those women exist in his fantasy for sexual reasons, it's important to note that, in the scene, they only care for him as he was cared for as a child (the bath, preparing food, etc). And of course, the women do revolt at the end, and the scene further shows him how he mistreat his wife. Also, it's another example of the great camerawork and blocking in the film.

I can also now clarify what I was saying in the voting thread.

If you pay attention, you'll notice that the film Guido is creating is 8 1/2 itself. The title actually refers to the fact that the film is Fellini's 8 1/2th project. In the beginning, the critic picks apart the dream sequence that starts the film, and he further critiques the movie as it goes on. Guido tells the priest early on that he plans on having the protagonist meet him while taking a mud bath in a spa, and that scene literally plays out later in the movie. Most obvious is when the casting videos are being watched.

Also, about Claudia's clothing. If you notice, you'll see she is wearing all white in the scenes when Guido envisions her. This, to me, shows how he's putting her on a pedestal as his muse. When the actress finally shows up during the casting videos, she's wearing all black. She then criticizes his work and plans on their car ride ("Because he doesn't know how to love"). Then at the end, all the characters appear in the great finale clad entirely in white. I see this as Guido accepting all these people as important to his life and his creativity. However, it could also be seen as a kind of afterlife. It's pretty open to interpretation, as the best movies are.

All in all, it's a great movie to me. La Dolce Vita has a similar style minus the surreal elements and is another Fellini movie people should check out at least once.

I just don't buy it.

I'm definitely in Sanders' corner, and I am not a fan of Hillary at all. But this article didn't really allay any fears I have about Sanders' ability to win the general election.

I think the big difference between Sanders and other Democratic candidates is that while the others have been called socialist, Sanders explicitly identifies as one. I disagree with the author. The Cold War mentality is still alive and strong in the United States even if it has weakened relative to that time period. All Trump has to do is keep repeating that Sanders is a socialist, and I think he'd win. Half of Sanders' own party doesn't agree with him economically, conservatives will view him as the devil, and I think independents will be mostly turned off by the socialist rhetoric as well. Plus, I think Sanders will struggle to attract hispanic and black voters, even though I think he really shouldn't.

I wish that wasn't the case, but that's what I believe.

Meanwhile, Trump's candidacy is gaining, but I still think his nomination would be a sign for how weak the Republican party is right now on the national stage than a sign for how strong a candidate he is.

He's doing well in the Republican primary, but I think that's a different beast than the general election. Trump can't be stopped now, but that's because the Republican primaries include the demographics that will find the most appeal from Trump. For one, I think Clinton would do better with the aforementioned hispanic and black voters as well as women in general. And I think Clinton would keep the moderates and independents as well. I also really don't see many Sanders supporters voting third party if Trump has a chance, and I really don't see most voting for Trump.

This all depends on Clinton remaining scandal free, however. And I haven't exactly been paying a ton of attention lately so I might be completely off-base.

Trump has the celebrity of Reagan, but he's not nearly as clean a candidate. I really can't see him winning, and if he does, well, I'll just have to sit back and watch the trainwreck.

I'm going to suggest Once Upon a Time in the West.

I've watched it once, but I don't think I gave it enough of my attention and I'd like to get back to it to give it another chance. Many people consider it Leone's best film, even over The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.

Life is Beautiful

Paths of Glory

The stream will play today at 9 EST at the link at the top of the post.

I actually forgot I'm going to be at a concert tonight, but I'll be able to set things up from my phone.

I'll send out another reminder at 8EST.

b_b, humanodon, ButterflyEffect, OftenBen, roysexton, iammyownrushmore, blackbootz,_refugee_, mk, eightbitsamurai, Ave, camarillobrillo, havires, kleinbl00, ecib, insomniasexx, elizabeth, nowaypablo, pigeon, rjw, StJohn, Mindwolf, Meriadoc, beezneez, longstocking, theadvancedapes, ghostoffuffle, T-Dog, jonaswildman, coffeesp00ns, bfv, cgod, mike, thenewgreen, zebra2, Kaius, Zurangatang, InkBubble, Scorpio, enjoyablethings, edricarica, subduedit, protorobot, War, Formerly_Me, joelg236, steve, rinx,

One of my favorite essays of all time. It's pretty popular among leftists for being such a great argument against the work culture that dominates the US.

As someone who knew what a 12 hour work day was at the age of 11 and watched his parents toil to make it through each week, it spoke to me.

Bertrand Russell, in general, is pretty awesome actually.

Not one movie, but the Star Wars trilogy.

They're some of the first movies I remember watching as a child. My dad rented the laser discs from Blockbuster, and I'll never forget the covers. Blue Star Wars with Vader on the cover, purple Empire with a storm trooper, and red Jedi with Yoda. Those huge discs will always be the definitive editions for the movies to me.

Later, my dad took me to see the new special edition of Star Wars at the old theater uptown. Watching the attack on the death star on the big screen was awesome as a 5 or 6 year old. It's still my favorite of Lucas' "enhanced" scenes.

Those films instilled in me a love for epic stories and trilogies following a hero's journey. LOTR and TDK trilogy would scratch those itches later.

But I always managed to keep watching the trilogy throughout the years, and now it's become tradition to watch it at least once a year. Hell, I might have to watch it soon now.

Of course, they're pretty much played out for me now so I could end up catching up with to them with 8 1/2, since its my favorite classic, and The Tree of Life, as it's my favorite.

I've also watched Fury Road about 5 times. That caught me off guard, actually. I just keep finding myself perfectly in the mood for the stunts and action.

He muted me for a pretty tame comment that disagreed with him on feminism. I wouldn't be surprised if he does that with others. The end result is that his posts can only be commented on by those who don't piss him off so he's pretty much creating an actual echo-chamber/circlejerk for himself and his followers on the site.

There was nothing in my comment to insinuate anger save maybe using the phrase "effing" as well as calling your comparison to KONY2012 "dishonest" (which it was) and your critique of Zinn "disingenuous" (which it also was).

I'll start with Zinn since I just reiterated myself.

The critique, again, is disingenuous.

Yes, Zinn included a Malcolm X quote critical of the the March on Washington, and yes, he did note that the March was embraced by Washington as a "friendly assemblage."

However, he did not "belittles Martin Luther Kings I Have a Dream speech" or claim "his star was made to eclipse Malcolm X's."

From his book, freely available on the Internet

Martin Luther King's speech there thrilled 200,000 black and white Americans-"I have a dream..." It was magnificent oratory, but without the anger that many blacks felt. When John Lewis, a young Alabama-born SNCC leader, much arrested, much beaten, tried to introduce a stronger note of outrage at the meeting, he was censored by the leaders of the march, who insisted he omit certain sentences critical of the national government and urging militant action.

And he incorporated X's words to show how they "probably closer to the mood of the black community" after "as if in deliberate contempt for its [the march's] moderation, a bomb exploded in the basement of a black church in Birmingham and four girls attending a Sunday school class were killed."

X's full quote:

The Negroes were out there in the streets. They were talking about how they were going to march on Washington.... That they were going to march on Washington, march on the Senate, march on the White House, march on the Congress, and tie it up, bring it to a halt, not let the government proceed. They even said they were going out to the airport and lay down on the runway and not let any airplanes land. I'm telling you what they said. That was revolution. That was revolution. That was the black revolution.

It was the grass roots out there in the street. It scared the white man to death, scared the white power structure in Washington, D.C. to death; I was there. When they found out that this black steamroller was going to come down on the capital, they called in ... these national Negro leaders that you respect and told them, "Call it off," Kennedy said. "Look you all are letting this thing go too far." And Old Tom said, "Boss, I can't stop it because I didn't start it." I'm telling you what they said. They said, "I'm not even in it, much less at the head of it." They said, "These Negroes are doing things on their own. They're running ahead of us." And that old shrewd fox, he said, "If you all aren't in it, I'll put you in it. I'll put you at the head of it. I'll endorse it. I'll welcome it. I'll help it. I'll join it."

This is what they did with the march on Washington. They joined it... became part of it, took it over. And as they took it over, it lost its militancy. It ceased to be angry, it ceased to be hot, it ceased to be uncompromising. Why, it even ceased to be a march. It became a picnic, a circus. Nothing but a circus, with clowns and all. . .

No, it was a sellout. It was a takeover. ... They controlled it so tight, they told those Negroes what time to hit town, where to stop, what signs to carry, what song to sing, what speech they could make, and what speech they couldn't make, and then told them to get out of town by sundown....

The point is that the march held back on the angrier rhetoric, and that Washington elites were more inclined to support the toned-down rhetoric and non-violence of King's movement. The example of John Lewis illustrates this. His quotes X, but in doing so, he's only showing what was X's opinion of the march. Should he leave out X's opinion to instead pay fealty to the mainstream narrative on the march? Should he include all the I Have A Dream speech though most know it already? What would be the point in writing this book then?

Zinn does look at those who who were more critical of nonviolence and gives them voice (That's pretty much the point of his book), but he never fails to mention that "King's stress on love and nonviolence was powerfully effective in building a sympathetic following throughout the nation, among whites as well as blacks. "

Secondly, I again don't think saying that "prejudice is a universal part of humanity" adds anything to any discussion. It's a tautology. People are racist because people are racist. Repeating it doesn't serve to enlighten anyone about the conditions facing actual minorities in actual places around the world. It has nothing to do with the discrimination and inequality faced by minority races in the United States, today except to say "hey, we're not the only ones who do it." That's hardly an argument.

To your point that economic oppression and racial oppression are not linked, I cannot help but vehemently disagree. I support the concept of intersectionality, and I do not think you can look at racial oppression without also looking at economic oppression. In fact, your initial comment seems to agree as you point to the "economic basic of slavery and oppression." What was slavery but a severe form of economic inequality? This video did not make the claim that slavery was inherently a racist institution used be whites against minorities, nor did anyone else. It only showed how slavery developed into a racist institution and how more racist institutions (Jim Crow, War on Drugs) developed from there.

Racism and economic inequality are definitely linked. In how black names get called back less. How a racial wealth gap exists and how minorities are disproportionately affected by economic downturns. How bias exists in a number of ways that affect minorities and how a history of discrimination and inequality hurts the economics of minorities. In fact, economists have looked at this for a long time.

EDIT: I read the Chapter. It's on the Internet. I linked to it in both my comments. Since that is the only chapter that has anything to do with what we're talking about, that's all I'd have needed to read to discuss it with you. You having "read the book" doesn't dismiss my criticisms of your reading, since I have read the same part we are referring to.

I will, again, reiterate that I made no claims that "white masters" conspire together to keep blacks down because they don't like black people. And that I do not believe this video did either. What I did claim is that the upper class is mostly white and there are institutional problems that disproportionately affect black people and other minorities. Institutional racism is a thing and it does benefit the mostly white elites that hold most the political, economic, and social power.

From my original reply.

Nowhere in his video does the guy say the "masters" come together at this hotel every last Tuesday in May to plot how to keep everyone down. It's pretty much the implied argument me and deanSolecki have already gone over. The upper classes act in their own interests, with more access to power centers and influential people, benefiting themselves and creating inequality. He brings up the consolidation of media and growing inequality to show how the upper classes have gotten more entrenched and powerful, nothing more.

He does say that the powerful enacted Jim Crow with specific intentions, but, hey, the powerful in the South DID enact Jim Crow with specific intentions of keeping black people down and unequal. And his assertions about the "caste" system seem to be how society became organized so that black slaves were worse off than poor whites, hardly a controversial claim. He says the system benefited the "masters," not that they created it in their basements to harm black people specifically because they thought the color of their skin was icky.

Your "broad point" again had little to nothing to do with the discussion. Slavery is not a racist institution inherently. But, again, slavery as practiced in the US in the 18th, 19th Century was a racist institution and it bred new ones, including Jim Crow and the War on Drugs. Interpersonal racism does not matter here. A non-racist slaveholder does not make the institution of slavery no longer institutionally racist when it continues to be applied disproportionately to black people. Same as the other two.

Kind of an abuse of the mute function. You could have just stopped replying. You're the one getting defensive here and before. I can call something disingenuous and dishonest without malice.

Whatever helps you sleep.

Congratulations, you're now joined with Grendel in the illustrious club of People Who Have Muted Me.

I wholeheartedly recommend the other suggestions. They are great movies that meet the criteria to a tee.

Funnily enough, I just mentioned my suggestion in another comment.

Mulholland Drive is a movie that takes at least two but maybe even more times to understand (or think your understand). It's a strange, cerebral film that really makes you think about what you're watching and how it's telling its story. It's David Lynch so it's pretty weird, but I really enjoyed it. There are theories and hints you can find on the Internet to learn the popular understanding of the movie, and figuring out what it means really opens it up in my opinion.

Upsteam Color might take a couple watches also cause it's a bit abstract with the details of its plot. I need to watch it again. But it's Primer director Shane Carruth's latest film. Wouldn't say it's as complicated as Primer is though.

Subbed