A potted history of America, and banned in America apparently.

[Bruv]

Brutal and brief, but not untrue.

[Bryn Mawr]

Given the strength of the gun lobby I can see why they banned it - I am surprised though given the American love of freee speech.

[Accountable]

Bruv;1379873 wrote: Brutal and brief, but not untrue.Brutal, brief, and completely untrue. But very entertaining. :wah:

[Accountable]

Bryn Mawr;1379882 wrote: Given the strength of the gun lobby I can see why they banned it - I am surprised though given the American love of freee speech.
It's on Youtube. I don't know what "banned" means in this case.

[Bruv]

It may not be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth......but.....

completely untrue ?

[YZGI]

All nations have ignorance, bigotry and any number of atrocious acts in their respective history. I'm sure the NRA had a hand in the banning if it was in fact banned. who and where was it banned from.I personally have no problem with it.

Micheal Moore obviously had his own agenda when making this.

[Accountable]

Bruv;1379888 wrote: It may not be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth......but.....

completely untrue ?
Only the facts. I'm sure the sentiment rings true for some.

[Ahso!]

I remember seeing that with the movie Moore made. I'm interested to know which "facts" are untrue. The cartoon is meant as a quick and brief history and so may appears simplistic, but Moore gets the message accross.

[LarsMac]

Well, it's obviously not banned, as I have seen it several times, in the US.

[Bruv]

LarsMac;1379904 wrote: Well, it's obviously not banned, as I have seen it several times, in the US.


Probably tagged as Banned to encourage you to watch.

It is from the film "Bowling for Columbine"

[Ahso!]

Bruv;1379905 wrote: Probably tagged as Banned to encourage you to watch.

It is from the film "Bowling for Columbine"I think that's right. Moore makes good documentries. I don't believe the right has an equal and may be jealous. The right has Conservapedia, but unlike Moore's movies, Conservapedia is non-factual.

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1379906 wrote: I think that's right. Moore makes good documentries. I don't believe the right has an equal and may be jealous. The right has Conservapedia, but unlike Moore's movies, Conservapedia is non-factual.


This piece is a fine example of editorializing, but hardly factual.

I might add that while lacking in factual data, it may still have truth to it.

[Bruv]

LarsMac;1379925 wrote: This piece is a fine example of editorializing, but hardly factual.

I might add that while lacking in factual data, it may still have truth to it.


Is editorializing an Americanism ? The word not the act of doing so.

Are not all facts given with a bias of sorts ?

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1379925 wrote: This piece is a fine example of editorializing, but hardly factual.

I might add that while lacking in factual data, it may still have truth to it.I'm still wondering which parts you're talking about. Is it the dates the cartoon cites, or are the evnts themselves not factual? Seriously, give us something specific to chew on.

[gmc]

Has it ever been shown on american television?

[Ahso!]

gmc;1379933 wrote: Has it ever been shown on american television?I'm sure it has, at least on HBO or Showtime.

[Accountable]

Ahso!;1379930 wrote: I'm still wondering which parts you're talking about. Is it the dates the cartoon cites, or are the evnts themselves not factual? Seriously, give us something specific to chew on.
Maybe if we can find a transcript to disassemble. Videos are hard to hard to do in this format.

I don't consider what Moore does as documentary, though I'm sure the definition has been relaxed over the years to include one-sided opinion pieces. Some of his stuff is entertaining, but what he makes is certainly not academically educational or objective.

[Ahso!]

Accountable;1379945 wrote: Maybe if we can find a transcript to disassemble. Videos are hard to hard to do in this format.

I don't consider what Moore does as documentary, though I'm sure the definition has been relaxed over the years to include one-sided opinion pieces. Some of his stuff is entertaining, but what he makes is certainly not academically educational or objective.Here you go, part of it at least. You can take a look at it and tell us what is non-factual.

Now, it's time for...

Hi, boys and girls.

Ready to get started?

Once upon a time, there were

these people in Europe

called pilgrims and they were

afraid of being persecuted.

So they all got in a boat

and sailed to the New World

where they wouldn't have

to be scared ever again.



- Oh, I'm so relaxed.

- I feel so much safer.

But as soon as they arrived,

they were greeted by savages.



- They got scared all over again.

- Injuns!



So they killed them all.

Now, you'd think

wiping out a race of people

would calm them down, but no.



Instead, they started getting

frightened of each other.



- Witch!

- So they burned witches.

In 1775

they started killing the

British, so they could be free.

And it worked.

But they still didn't feel safe.

So they passed a 2nd amendment,

which said every white man

- could keep his gun.

- I loves my gun, loves my gun.



This brings us to

the genius idea of slavery.

You see, boys and girls,

the white people back then



were also afraid of doing any

work. So they went to Africa,

kidnapped thousands of black

people, brought them to America,

and forced them to work

very hard for no money.

And I don't mean no money like:

"I work at Wal-Mart

and make no money."

I mean zero dollars.

Nothing, nada, zip.

Doing it that way made the USA

the richest country

in the world.

So did having all that money

and free help

calm the white people down? No

way. They got even more afraid.

That's because after

years of slavery,

the black people now outnumbered

the white people in many parts

of the South. Well, you can

pretty much what came next.



The slaves started rebelling.

There were uprisings

and old masters' heads

got chopped off



and when white people heard of

this, they were freaking out.

They going: I want to live!

[Accountable]

:yh_rotfl Nothing is not on the internet.

It'll have to wait until tomorrow.

[Ahso!]

Accountable;1379951 wrote: :yh_rotfl Nothing is not on the internet.

It'll have to wait until tomorrow.I knew you'd like that.

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1379930 wrote: I'm still wondering which parts you're talking about. Is it the dates the cartoon cites, or are the evnts themselves not factual? Seriously, give us something specific to chew on.


Perhaps you would offer up what you believe to be facts?

I don't see many.

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1379955 wrote: Perhaps you would offer up what you believe to be facts?

I don't see many.We can talk about the ones you do see.

I say the entire cartoon is accurate, but it wasn't me who challenged it. You and Accountable both said it was not factual, but couldn't point out which parts you were referring to. Now that you've got a transcrip, your handleing this like a hot potato.

You're going to insist on making this tedious, aren't you.

Okay then, do you dispute the following?

"Once upon a time, there were

these people in Europe

called pilgrims and they were

afraid of being persecuted.

So they all got in a boat

and sailed to the New World

where they wouldn't have

to be scared ever again."

[Accountable]

LarsMac;1379955 wrote: Perhaps you would offer up what you believe to be facts?

I don't see many.
Oh come on, let's not go there this time.

Ahso!;1379950 wrote: Here you go, part of it at least. You can take a look at it and tell us what is non-factual.


Now, it's time for...

Hi, boys and girls.

Ready to get started?

Once upon a time, there were

these people in Europe

called pilgrims and they were

afraid of being persecuted.

So they all got in a boat

and sailed to the New World

where they wouldn't have

to be scared ever again.

I guess my main objection is the oversimplification to the point of lying, such as here. The condescending tone insults some really brave and adventurous people. They weren't cowards, as Mr Moore clearly implies.



- Oh, I'm so relaxed.

- I feel so much safer.

But as soon as they arrived,

they were greeted by savages.



- They got scared all over again.

- Injuns!



So they killed them all.

Now, you'd think

wiping out a race of people

would calm them down, but no.

Really? The Pilgrims wiped out an entire race of people? Where's the source for that?



Instead, they started getting

frightened of each other.



- Witch!

- So they burned witches.

I can't argue this one. They burned witches out of fear. No numbers, no context, but hey, facts is facts.

In 1775

they started killing the

British, so they could be free.

Yes, that sums it up entirely.

Moore is so intent on being cute & quippy that the entire Revolutionary war is reduced to a 12-word outright lie.

And it worked.

But they still didn't feel safe.

So they passed a 2nd amendment,

which said every white man

- could keep his gun.

- I loves my gun, loves my gun.



This brings us to

the genius idea of slavery.

So then there wasn't slavery until after the Revolutionary war and white men kept guns? Got it.

You see, boys and girls,

the white people back then



were also afraid of doing any

work.

Bullshit lie that lays the blame for starting the slave trade in the wrong place. This is a double lie - one of commission and one of omission.

So they went to Africa,

kidnapped thousands of black

people, brought them to America,

and forced them to work

very hard for no money.

And I don't mean no money like:

"I work at Wal-Mart

and make no money."

I mean zero dollars.

Nothing, nada, zip.

Doing it that way made the USA

the richest country

in the world.

This is the first time I ever saw a claim that slavery made the USA the richest country in the world. I want to see some proof that the USA was the richest nation in the world at any time 1776-1865 as a direct result of slavery. Until then, this is a lie.

So did having all that money

and free help

calm the white people down? No

way. They got even more afraid.

That's because after

years of slavery,

the black people now outnumbered

the white people in many parts

of the South. Well, you can

pretty much what came next.



The slaves started rebelling.

There were uprisings

and old masters' heads

got chopped off



and when white people heard of

this, they were freaking out.

They going: I want to live!

Just the barest hint of context is all I ask. To take this portion at its word, all of the South exploded in a bloodbath of rebellious slaves beheading white people. Did even one person get beheaded? Probably. More than one?

And then the cartoon goes on to imply that the slaves became free as a result of that rebellion. Oh if you listen close, you hear the words "Civil War" mentioned, but it's very quick and has no meaning at all in the cartoon.

To say this is factual is to say that Song of the South is factual, except that nobody tried to pawn off Song of the South as a true representation of history.

[Ahso!]

I've already agreed it's simplistic and I'll add sarcastic. I think Moore did it that way to get the point accross without becoming boring.Accountable;1379961 wrote:

Now, it's time for...

Hi, boys and girls.

Ready to get started?

Once upon a time, there were

these people in Europe

called pilgrims and they were

afraid of being persecuted.

So they all got in a boat

and sailed to the New World

where they wouldn't have

to be scared ever again.

I guess my main objection is the oversimplification to the point of lying, such as here. The condescending tone insults some really brave and adventurous people. They weren't cowards, as Mr Moore clearly implies.They may have been brave, I guess, but everyone who lives is brave. These people did what they thought they had to do to survive while maintaining there beliefs, we all do that, but also, being the religious sect they were, they may very well have been a little paranoid, which I think is being pointed out. Extremely religious people do appear to be paranoid and fearful, that's why they're religious to the extent they are. I do understand your point though.



Accountable;1379961 wrote:

- Oh, I'm so relaxed.

- I feel so much safer.

But as soon as they arrived,

they were greeted by savages.



- They got scared all over again.

- Injuns!



So they killed them all.

Now, you'd think

wiping out a race of people

would calm them down, but no.

Really? The Pilgrims wiped out an entire race of people? Where's the source for that?I'd like to referr you to Daniel N Paul's "We Were Not The Savages" and "The First Thanksgiving". The Real Thanksgiving

For info on Paul, see here> Daniel N. Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Accountable;1379961 wrote:

Instead, they started getting

frightened of each other.



- Witch!

- So they burned witches.

I can't argue this one. They burned witches out of fear. No numbers, no context, but hey, facts is facts.Again, Moore is trying to prevent bordom. The witch hunts and trials in New England are well documented. Tody, of course, we know there are no witches. At least I hope we do.

Accountable;1379961 wrote:

In 1775

they started killing the

British, so they could be free.

Yes, that sums it up entirely.

Moore is so intent on being cute & quippy that the entire Revolutionary war is reduced to a 12-word outright lie. I recall a history professor claiming that the reason the Americans were victorious in the revolutionary war was due to many of the British soldiers refusing to kill their own people.

Accountable;1379961 wrote:

And it worked.

But they still didn't feel safe.

So they passed a 2nd amendment,

which said every white man

- could keep his gun.

- I loves my gun, loves my gun.



This brings us to

the genius idea of slavery.

So then there wasn't slavery until after the Revolutionary war and white men kept guns? Got it.I don't think the seque is chronological, I believe he's simply changing subjects.

What's interesting here is that Moore does not appear to argue that the second amendment was strictly for a militia. He seems to agree that guns are the right of everyday citizens.

Accountable;1379961 wrote:

You see, boys and girls,

the white people back then



were also afraid of doing any

work.

Bullshit lie that lays the blame for starting the slave trade in the wrong place. This is a double lie - one of commission and one of omission.Don't know what you mean

Accountable;1379961 wrote:

So they went to Africa,

kidnapped thousands of black

people, brought them to America,

and forced them to work

very hard for no money.

And I don't mean no money like:

"I work at Wal-Mart

and make no money."

I mean zero dollars.

Nothing, nada, zip.

Doing it that way made the USA

the richest country

in the world.

This is the first time I ever saw a claim that slavery made the USA the richest country in the world. I want to see some proof that the USA was the richest nation in the world at any time 1776-1865 as a direct result of slavery. Until then, this is a lie.perhaps he means in the longer term? Slavery was definately a factor in America's financial stength.

Accountable;1379961 wrote:

So did having all that money

and free help

calm the white people down? No

way. They got even more afraid.

That's because after

years of slavery,

the black people now outnumbered

the white people in many parts

of the South. Well, you can

pretty much what came next.



The slaves started rebelling.

There were uprisings

and old masters' heads

got chopped off



and when white people heard of

this, they were freaking out.

They going: I want to live!

Just the barest hint of context is all I ask. To take this portion at its word, all of the South exploded in a bloodbath of rebellious slaves beheading white people. Did even one person get beheaded? Probably. More than one?I think Moore is claiming that the beheadings were an intentional rumor started by whites to create fear of blacks. you know, similar to what the republican party has been doing to instill fear of Muslims today.

Accountable;1379961 wrote:

And then the cartoon goes on to imply that the slaves became free as a result of that rebellion. Oh if you listen close, you hear the words "Civil War" mentioned, but it's very quick and has no meaning at all in the cartoon.

To say this is factual is to say that Song of the South is factual, except that nobody tried to pawn off Song of the South as a true representation of history.Black people were rebelling and escaping to the north and influential nothern folks were sympathetic to the plight of the slave, weren't they? Didn't that partially instigate the Civil War?

[Accountable]

I claimed it was not factual. You asked for me to point out what was not factual. I did. Then rather than acknowledging, you become Moore's apologist. I know that he altered the facts for effect, as you say. That's not in question. That should never be in question no matter what Moore production one may be watching.

[Ahso!]

Now hold on there, young fella. There's nothing wrong with me defending my claim that it is factual. Interpretation is all that separates us. Context appears to be your main beef and I have acknowledged that, but I went on to explain how that was intentional because the documentary was not focused on that cartoon, rather the cartoon is an animation of events in a simplistic form to explain what Moore believes is at the core of America's fascination with guns.

You and your apologist allegations.

[Accountable]

Ahso!;1379974 wrote: Now hold on there, young fella. There's nothing wrong with me defending my claim that it is factual. Interpretation is all that separates us. Context appears to be your main beef and I have acknowledged that, but I went on to explain how that was intentional because the documentary was not focused on that cartoon, rather the cartoon is an animation of events in a simplistic form to explain what Moore believes is at the core of America's fascination with guns.

You and your apologist allegations. Context matters when you are claiming to be accurate.

[Ahso!]

Accountable;1379995 wrote: Context matters when you are claiming to be accurate.Of course context matters and the context is there, just not where you'd like it to be.

[fuzzywuzzy]

That's one of the most entertaining cartoons I've seen in awhile . anyone ever seen a show called Horrible Historys?

[Accountable]

fuzzywuzzy;1380008 wrote: That's one of the most entertaining cartoons I've seen in awhile .You might like this, then.

[Accountable]

fuzzywuzzy;1380008 wrote: That's one of the most entertaining cartoons I've seen in awhile . anyone ever seen a show called Horrible Historys?


Just looked them up and watched a few. These are great! I'm definitely going to torture my students with a few of these.

[fuzzywuzzy]

I've learnt from the shows and my youngest watches them all the time . It's a pleasent thing to see a teen laugh at educational stuff. I began watching them because Keehan would come to me with "Hey mum, did you know" all the time .

[fuzzywuzzy]

They'll love this one then lol







Ahhhh!! the good old days eh?