Alice Walker: Called her daughters birth a “calamity”Alice was punished with a baby.
Posted on 10/02/2012 6:38:59 AM PDT by Paladins Prayer
While image isn’t really everything, it certainly appears so when it’s all people are allowed to see. What follows is a list of 10 individuals who have Dr. Jekyll images that obscure a Mr. Hyde reality.
1. Alice Walker
While The Color Purple author and feminist icon masquerades as a champion of women, the woman she should have cared about most in her life, her own daughter, Rebecca, she viewed as a “millstone” around her neck.
As Rebecca reveals, her mother called her birth a “calamity” and would leave her in the care of others or to fend for herself while she was still a child. Her mother drummed into her head that motherhood was slavery, but was happy when she became sexually active at 13 — Alice fancied it “empowering.” And while she was “supportive” when Rebecca had an abortion at age 14, this changed when Rebecca decided to become a mother as an adult. In fact, Rebecca’s rejection of the culture of death led to a spat that ended when, writes Rebecca, “she wrote me a letter saying that our relationship had been inconsequential for years and that she was no longer interested in being my mother. She even signed the letter with her first name, rather than 'Mom'.”
But, hey, I’m sure Alice Walker has read It Takes a Village.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
Fellow playwright Edward Albee once said, writes the Daily Mail, “Miller had held up a mirror and told society: ‘Here is how you behave.’” I guess this includes not only being sympathetic to communism, but also tearing your infant Down syndrome son away from a mother who desperately wanted to keep him and committing him to a mental institution. And this was done, avers American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson, “All because he [Miller] must have been embarrassed that his son wasn't capable of being the intellectual he wanted to pretend to be himself.”
Miller wrote one good play and lived off it the rest of his life, producing ever more dreadful dreck for forty years.
Both obviously true statements. It is entirely possible to be remarkably evil.
If Hitler had been incompetent, he would not have accomplished what he did.
That says more about Monroe than it does about Miller.
I’m not so sure what that play would be. Perhaps you might want to read the article by Thomas Lifson that the author linked up to. Miller was a rotten skunk and his work was consistently anti-American.
Only wish I would have figured out when I was young and single that “Hey, Baby, I’m a Communist!” was such an effective pick-up line...
I don’t know who Alice Walker is
Gandhi: That was a surprise. Evidently the media worshiped him like they do Zero.
As the article says, she’s the broad who wrote “The Color Purple.”
Alice Walker: Called her daughters birth a “calamity”Alice was punished with a baby.
I know Ghandi said the Jews in Germany and Poland should protest peacefully against the Nazi’s.
Your day is starting off well, then.
“I know Ghandi said the Jews in Germany and Poland should protest peacefully against the Nazi’s.”
But first, how about a refreshing shower...the line’s over there.
Kinda surprised that St. Che Guevara isn’t on that list ...
I was a drama major in college. Of course we all had to study the "great playwrights"; and many of our acting and directing scenes were culled from plays by Miller, O'Neill, Tennessee Williams, Shaw, et al. Looking back, almost all the plays were nothing more than screeds against the American Dream; or were pro-homosexual and pro-communist, etc.
Amazing how these people are whitewashed.
From what I’ve read, Marilyn wasn’t happy with Joe. She wasn’t happy with Arthur either.
The best part of that movie is where the cop walks out and conks Oprah on the head with the butt of his revolver. I’d pay cash money to see somebody do that in real life.
Great article! Thanks for the post.
Remembering a way back to my days in college (early 90's), she's a highly-revered writer/poet in English, Black Studies, Poetry, Literature, and other lib ed departments. I presume that many college (and probably some high school) students are introduced to her through the overly-liberal syllabi. Her style did not do much for me.
I agree. I remember the “Color Purple” movie, it was also tedious and boring.
Speaking of staging scenes in drama class, I once played one of the cops picking up the young immigrant protagonist in that play.
She wasn’t happy with Jack or Bobby, either.
Alice Walker #1? Seriously? I was only aware of her existence through a movie, and only then because I knew it was a book and someone wrote it.
I consider Death of a Salesman to be dreadful dreck, along with Catcher in the Rye.
It's no wonder I usually disliked my English classes, we had to read some awful stuff.
-— It’s no wonder I usually disliked my English classes, we had to read some awful stuff. -—
I associated reading with pain, and vowed to never read a novel again. I lasted 10 years.
I don’t think the numbers are meant as a ranking from worst to bad.
Death of a Salesman. Good...maybe but it never interested me. Miller also wrote the screenplay to the Misfits supposedly for Marilyn. He also wrote a play called After the Fall which was all about Marilyn's mental issues. Basically using her personal "dirty laundry" for his own benefit. Lots of writers do this with their close relationships but in her case it still seems a bit unseemly to me. Miller was Jewish which is something that appealed to Marilyn along with his being so "intellectual." Marilyn even began looking into converting to his religion. I often wondered if that wasn't the impetus for Madonna's (now long forgotten) interest in the Kabbalah. Madonna spent much of her "career" using Marilyn's life as her foot up.
Okay, then I revise myself: Alice Walker in the top ten? Who cares or even knows about her?
I may have to disagree. The point is that insofar as she is known, she’s respected. The reality is that given the state of education (look at the Howard Stern interviews), most people today wouldn’t know anyone on that list except maybe for Moore and Gandhi, and some wouldn’t even know those two.
How did Jesus Christ, Son of God, say we should treat our enemies?
The Bible says there is a time for war as well.
Moreover, any good theologian understands the right to self-defense and the principles of just-war theory.
Gandhi was an idiot.
Moreover, any good theologian understands the right to self-defense and the principles of just-war theory.
The old testament says that. Who in the old testament decided when the time is right for war?
The old testament also contains a whole list of laws controlling how you're supposed to live your life and punishments that are to be meted out if you don't follow the law, such as being put to death for cursing your father or mother or for committing adultery. (Leviticus 20)
Do you believe we should be following these laws?
Most 'good' theologians are selective about what parts of the Bible they choose to obey and those they choose to ignore. For example, they pick out the part about a time for war when talking about self-defense and ignore what Jesus said to do when their enemy smites them on the cheek.
The new testament supersedes the old testament, does it not? What does Romans 12 say about self-defense and how we're supposed to treat our enemies?
Bump
superceding doesn’t mean the OT is now somehow wrong or not relevant in our lives. you want to say the 10 commandments aren’t to be followed or shouldn’t be taught as something to attempt to love by just because we’re under grace?
I have a simple answer. Since I’m a member of Christ’s original church, I understand that Sola Scriptura is a mistaken doctrine. I know where the Bible comes from, and I know where individual interpretation goes to: heresy.
God bless you.
OT law was given to the nation of Israel, not to Christians. (Romans 10:4, Galatians 3:23–25, Ephesians 2:15) Christians are under Christ's laws, i.e.: 'Love thy God with all thy heart, all thy mind and all thy soul' and 'Love thy neighbor as thyself'. (Matthew 22:36-40)
This doesn't mean the 10 Commandments are not relevant, but it means that Christians aren't bound by Jewish law. The OT law is a unit. It either all applies or none of it does. (James 2:10)
The purpose of OT law as to prove that no one could live by it, therefore proving our need for a Savior. Our only requirement under Christ's law is that we love God and love our neighbors and if we do those two things we will fulfill all that God requires of us because if we do those two things, we would never commit adultery, covet our neighbors things, kill (murder), etc.
Let’s put this in simple terms. If you don’t believe there’s such thing as a just war, you’re a darn fool and a dangerous person.
Aren’t you supposed to be in Lancaster County driving a buggy right now?
Aren't you supposed to be torturing someone for heresy a la the Spanish Inquisition?
God’s Law is universal and applicable to everyone. As God’s Word tells us we are all sinners and all need Christ, that means all have broken God’s laws, Jewish or not.
You can’t compartmentalize God’s Word this way. The dietary and ceremonial laws God gave to the Jews are not the eternal, universal unchanging, spiritually perfect laws of God as sumarized in the 10 commandments, for example. your statement says you put all/of that on the same plane, that it’s all only applicable to the jews. that is not right.
The whole bible is Gods Word and is applicable fully. And it has to be because those that are not yet saved, God’s Word says they are under the Law right now, they stand condemned and as law’breakers. If the Law didn’t still apply to people the OT wold be irrelevant and we could’t talk about sinners being sinners and trying to get them to repent.
“Aren’t you supposed to be torturing someone for heresy a la the Spanish Inquisition?”
I’m looking for you right now.
The laws in Leviticus 20 are not dietary or ceremonial laws, but how to deal with sinners, such as those who curse their mothers or fathers and those who commit adultery. In Leviticus 20, the punishment for such offenses is death.
If the OT laws are fully applicable to everyone, Jew and Gentile alike, then do you believe that someone who curses their father or mother and someone who commits adultery should be put to death without exception as it commands in Leviticus 20?
Or, do you believe that we should forgive 70 times 7 trespasses as Jesus commanded in Matthew 18:22?
The whole bible is Gods Word and is applicable fully. And it has to be because those that are not yet saved, God’s Word says they are under the Law right now
In Romans 10:4, Paul clearly states: "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."
If what you say is so, then please explain what Paul means in Galatians 3 and Galatians 5. (Galatians 3:13 - "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree", Galtians 5:14 - "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.")
If the law of Christ in the NT does not supersede the OT, then the two are contradictory. You can't forgive a sinner 70 times 7 and put him to death for cursing his mother or father or for committing adultery.
If the laws of Leviticus were not meant to be superseded, then Jesus would not have interceded for Mary when the Pharisees wanted to stone her for adultery in John 8.
being under grace gives us the ability not to punish according to God’s unchnging, perfect laws.
your very scripture confirms that only that those who believe are not under the law. you ignore plenty of NT scripture by Paul that clearly states those who are not saved are currently dead in their sins and the law convicts them.
you can believe what you want, just be aware it’s not biblical. i don’t feel like we’ll go anywhere so I’ll just say see ya later.
This is what I've been saying. Once someone is saved, i.e.: becomes a Christian, they are no longer bound by OT law because they are now bound by NT law.
But, according to the OT, the laws handed down to Moses were intended only for the nation of Israel, known as God's chosen people.
If you can show in scripture where Mosaic laws were intended for all people, Jews and Gentiles alike, then I'd like to see it.
you can believe what you want, just be aware it’s not biblical. i don’t feel like we’ll go anywhere so I’ll just say see ya later.
I'm always willing to see the other guy's viewpoint and to discuss it rationally. If I'm wrong, I'm always willing to admit it.
A writer, most notably of The Color Purple, of which I made it throuh the first chapter only....
Duke is off base here.
Those lefty scumbags he listed are “respected” only by other lefty scumbags and chattering class ignoramuses who simply don’t know any better.
By the way, that other eugenicist and hero of Hillary Clinton, Margaret Sanger, could have been on the list, too.
I’d disagree. Gandhi and Shaw are respected by most everyone (who knows their names), and most of the others are respected by segments of the population that include more then leftists. Remember that people like Walker are read in schools sometimes. Also remember that a lot of people in this country are completely fooled by the revisionist historians. There’s a lot of ignorance out there.
Only the ignorant...
I have been aware of the nature of all of those people and didn’t particularly respect any of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
