Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Confederate States of America: The Movie"
The Boston Fishwrap ^ | 2/26/06 | Burr

Posted on 02/26/2006 1:56:28 PM PST by pabianice

Kevin Willmott's ersatz documentary "CSA: The Confederate States of America" is an act of provocation that's sheer genius in its conceptual simplicity. Fairly unoriginal, too. Writers and historians have been penning "what-if" scenarios predicated on the War Between the States going the other way for decades; I recall MacKinley Kantor's "If the South Had Won the Civil War" on my elementary school reading list years ago, and more recent authors such as Harry Turtledove and Roger L. Ransom have addressed the matter as well.

Willmott isn't interested in academic niceties. He wants to make you laugh and hurt at the same time, and then he wants you to think. So his film -- ostensibly a British documentary being aired on a local San Francisco station -- opens with an ad for Confederate Family Insurance, complete with a happy white family, soothing banjo music, and a smiling young African-American slave tending the garden. What follows is nothing less than a satiric takedown of our assumptions about racial progress.

Presented by Spike Lee and constructed as a finely tuned parody of the Ken Burns school of filmmaking (period music, old photos, talking-head experts), "CSA" sketches out a disquieting alternative history of the United States. It begins with the South winning Gettysburg thanks to the appearance of French and British troops alongside the Confederate Army, Europe's intervention having been won with the assistance of diplomat Judah Benjamin. (This prompts Jefferson Davis to later say, "Don't you evah forget, suh, that it was a blood-sucking Jew who saved this country.")

(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: americanhistory; csa; dixie; moviereview
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-102 next last
A rollicking hatefest brought to you by Spike Lee and the Marxist Trust babies at The Boston Globe.

Trailer

1 posted on 02/26/2006 1:56:30 PM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Oh good Lord, does the word parody mean anything to you?

The movie's actually been around for a while. I saw it a year or so ago over in Lawrence. I understand it's been re-edited a bit. I'll have to go see it again.

2 posted on 02/26/2006 2:03:57 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Ewww, I gotta think about what I'd like to say about Spike Lee before posting.


3 posted on 02/26/2006 2:04:25 PM PST by Lancer_N3502A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Did you watch the Trailer?

It's satire.


4 posted on 02/26/2006 2:10:05 PM PST by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancer_N3502A

If the South won, Spike Lee wouldn't exist !


5 posted on 02/26/2006 2:14:07 PM PST by Renegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Of course its satire. It's also revolting.


6 posted on 02/26/2006 2:20:47 PM PST by pabianice (contact ebay??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

The question now and always will be; Why didn't Lincoln let the Southerners go? The "Yankee" thinks all Southerners are stupid, why keep them around when they don't want to have anything to do with you? Lincoln "killed" 600,000 Americans to keep the South in the Union. Today the South is ridiculed and berated by the Likes of a Joe Conason. Joe, why don't you go to hell and let the South go?


7 posted on 02/26/2006 2:25:25 PM PST by Blake#1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: pabianice

it would be interesting to see what would come of someone doing this question right ,instead of stooping to stupid lowlife stereotypes


9 posted on 02/26/2006 2:29:13 PM PST by LeoWindhorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blake#1
The question now and always will be; Why didn't Lincoln let the Southerners go?

Cuz they done went and shot up that thar fort?

10 posted on 02/26/2006 2:29:28 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

I'm Black, Brown or whatever the statuis quo is today and the trailer made me sick and very disgusted it was a slap in the face. I guess their idea of satire is to cause hurt with hate!

That's one of the many reasons I'm an Ex-Masshole


11 posted on 02/26/2006 2:32:42 PM PST by Garvin (Oxymoron: Slick Willy signed my Honorable Discharge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LeoWindhorse
it would be interesting to see what would come of someone doing this question right ,instead of stooping to stupid lowlife stereotypes

Harry Turtledove is nine volumes into God knows how many books on an alternate history of the Civil War. In his series the south wins the Civil War and wins a rematch in 1881. Then it allies with the British and French in the Great War while the United States allies iteself with Imperial Germany. To make a long story short, the south loses that war and then goes through a period mirroring Nazi Germany. Hyper inflation, the rise to power of a disgruntled former NCO who heads a Nazi-like party, and then the beginning of a second world war. Presently the confederates have just lost an entire army in Pittsburg, and the confederates are rounding up all blacks and exterminating them in concentration camps.

That done right enough for you?

12 posted on 02/26/2006 2:35:38 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Blake#1



Conason is a bitter and nasty Leftie (sorry for the redundancy...lol) but Conason can't stop berating the South, because we are saving the Union from the democrats.


13 posted on 02/26/2006 2:36:21 PM PST by onyx (IF ONLY 10% of Muslims are radical, that's still 120 MILLION who want to kill us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Cuz they done went and shot up that thar fort

That "Fort" was still SC state property not yet transfered to the Federal Government when "OCCUPIED" by union troops from Fort Moultrie.. I'd say the "Invasion " started there "

14 posted on 02/26/2006 2:39:30 PM PST by Robe (Rome did not create a great empire by talking, they did it by killing all those who opposed them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

I haven't seen the movie, but I found myself laughing out loud at some of the lines in the article. There's nothing like satire to make a point. I love the way the jokes in the article ransack political correctness.


15 posted on 02/26/2006 2:41:58 PM PST by Savage Beast (9/11 was never repeated--thanks to President Bush and his surveillance program.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robe
That "Fort" was still SC state property not yet transfered to the Federal Government when "OCCUPIED" by union troops from Fort Moultrie.. I'd say the "Invasion " started there "

Try again. The federal government was building the fort, not the state of South Carolina. And it was built on land deeded to the government free and clear by the South Carolina legislature. It was, in every respect, the property of the federal government and the U.S. Army.

Link

16 posted on 02/26/2006 2:43:30 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I beg to differ.. although you are correct in that the State of South Carolina deeded the property to the Federal Government, it was NOT to take possession of the property until the construction was complete.
This can be ascertained by documents in the Confederate Relic Room in Columbia SC, as well as remarks (in writing)by Maj. Anderson himself questioning the legitimacy of move to Sumter
17 posted on 02/26/2006 2:53:07 PM PST by Robe (Rome did not create a great empire by talking, they did it by killing all those who opposed them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: pabianice; stainlessbanner
Presented by Spike Lee and constructed as a finely tuned parody of the Ken Burns school of filmmaking (period music, old photos, talking-head experts), "CSA" sketches out a disquieting alternative history of the United States

Revisionist bump. Spike Lee and Ken Burns? May as well have gotten Howdy Doody to write it. It would be about as truthful and factual...

This prompts Jefferson Davis to later say, "Don't you evah forget, suh, that it was a blood-sucking Jew...

I have not seen this movie but 'blood-sucking Jew' sounds a bit more yankee to me. Perhaps those bastions of inclusion Sherman or Grant....

18 posted on 02/26/2006 2:58:06 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robe
I beg to differ.. although you are correct in that the State of South Carolina deeded the property to the Federal Government, it was NOT to take possession of the property until the construction was complete.

And yet it had taken posession of it. The fort was being built under the supervision of an army officer. It was being paid for by the federal government. It was, in every resepect, an army project and South Carolina had no say in the matter.

This can be ascertained by documents in the Confederate Relic Room in Columbia SC, as well as remarks (in writing)by Maj. Anderson himself questioning the legitimacy of move to Sumter.

Well I can't speak for the the Confederate Relic Room, but in all my reading on the Southern rebellion, including Sumter, I've never come across anything by Anderson questioning the legitimacy of his move to Sumter. He was, in fact, the person who decided to make the move once Major Buell had told him to act at his own discretion to protect his garrison.

19 posted on 02/26/2006 2:58:16 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: billbears
I have not seen this movie but 'blood-sucking Jew' sounds a bit more yankee to me. Perhaps those bastions of inclusion Sherman or Grant....

No, in the movie it's sort of an outshoot from the confederate alliance with Adolph Hitler. All the Jews are locked up on Long Island and all the Blacks are property. Each side got what it wanted.

20 posted on 02/26/2006 3:01:02 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
That done right enough for you?

no , that's just another stupid fantasy based on the same tired old stereotypes . I could only manage to read one of
Turtleduds books .
Of course we all know what happened ,happened the way it did for a reason and there ain't no changin nuthin at this point .
Personally , I am vastly more concerned with our winning the WoT than worrying about 'what if's' 145 years ago.
21 posted on 02/26/2006 3:02:16 PM PST by LeoWindhorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Robe

The war was going to happen, one way or another. Lincoln was not going to let the rebellion happen on his watch.

Fort Sumter provided the spark old Abe needed. I'm of southern descent and my people fought for the CSA. Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan, fought a total war for victory against our people. It could not have been otherwise.

The only hope for southern victory was a fast campaign. Lee refused to march on Washington after Bull Run. It was open and undefended. That decision ended southern prospects. You cannot fight a gentleman's war.

This portraying us as Nazis and bigot slaveowners is preposterous. Without the south, Albert Gore would be president. Tennessee kept him from the presidency, his own state. Try winning a presidential election without us. The north is basically communist.

Southern boys are fighting in Iraq now, and have given themselves for the USA in how many wars and how many generations? It's the most patriotic, freedom loving, God fearing, and best integrated area of the country. Spike Lee is a bigot and a fool.


22 posted on 02/26/2006 3:05:48 PM PST by Luke21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

I left Turtledove's books in the middle of WWI. It was quite evident by then where he was going and where his sympathies lay. Quite sad really. Really could have delved much deeper into the 16th President's Socialist leanings and where that would have taken the north. But he had to go off the deep end to demonize good Southern men didn't he?


23 posted on 02/26/2006 3:06:50 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
As historians ( I'm am amatuer one ) we can argue this point to the extreme.. as well it has been.. it all depends on the point of view one has......
As for the statements of Maj. Anderson, it is in the form of a diary he kept , and was written as point counter point to his moving to the Fort..
(This was a suprise to me when I saw at it thru a glass panel at the Relic Room) However, I must submit to you that the move of Federal Troops to a "blocking point" in Charleston Harbor was a provocative move, in the mind of the South Carolina G'vmt
24 posted on 02/26/2006 3:08:05 PM PST by Robe (Rome did not create a great empire by talking, they did it by killing all those who opposed them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Really could have delved much deeper into the 16th President's Socialist leanings and where that would have taken the north.

He probably found the Nazi Confederacy concept more likely.

But he had to go off the deep end to demonize good Southern men didn't he?

If he had demonized Northern men you would have lapped it up huh?

25 posted on 02/26/2006 3:09:49 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

LOL - I am married to a native Texan. Down here they still don't like Yankees. I mean *really don't*. We brought bad manners, hateful driving, nasty accents, and forgot all about how to say 'maam' and 'sir'.

And after 20+ years here, I am beginning to think like her....


26 posted on 02/26/2006 3:12:15 PM PST by txzman (Jer 23:29)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robe
However, I must submit to you that the move of Federal Troops to a "blocking point" in Charleston Harbor was a provocative move, in the mind of the South Carolina G'vmt

With virtually all of his garrison in Fort Moultrie, totally indefensible from the landward side, in a city filled with rumors of an impending attack on his garrison, what choice did Anderson have but to shift his forces to the most defensible post under his command?

27 posted on 02/26/2006 3:13:11 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
 
I just about laughed my ass off when I watched that trailer.
 
Ping me when the DVD comes out. This could be as good a film as was the "King of Hearts."

28 posted on 02/26/2006 3:14:52 PM PST by Radix (Stop domestic violence. Beat a broad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice


...it's by Spike Lee?

I think I'll pass...


29 posted on 02/26/2006 3:17:59 PM PST by Tzimisce (How Would Mohammed Vote? Hillary for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

I'm guessing that he fails to include the part about the first legal slave-owner in America was A BLACK MAN????


30 posted on 02/26/2006 3:18:22 PM PST by tcrlaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Luke21

It ain't just yew sutherners fightin in that there desert war over in Iraq by the way.

I recently met a young Army officer from the Bayou area, and he was just about one of the brightest people I have ever known. .......Non sequitor.

I probably agree with you concerning Spike Lee, but I still think that trailer was funny, and I'd actually like to see that movie now.


31 posted on 02/26/2006 3:20:26 PM PST by Radix (Stop domestic violence. Beat a broad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Robe; Non-Sequitur
Image hosting by Photobucket
32 posted on 02/26/2006 3:20:36 PM PST by dynachrome ("Where am I? Where am I going? Why am I in a handbasket?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf
I'm guessing that he fails to include the part about the first legal slave-owner in America was A BLACK MAN????

I guessing that considering that the Spain was in North America for quite a bit longer than the British the first legal slave-owner in America was A SPANIARD!!!

33 posted on 02/26/2006 3:21:55 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Someone needs to point out to Mr. Lee that all those that fled to "Red Canada" (Red Canada = Red States, get it?) to be with Lincoln were Republicans and all those that were victorous in his film were Democrats.


34 posted on 02/26/2006 3:36:11 PM PST by usmcobra (I always sing Karaoke the way it is meant to be sung, drunk, badly, and in Japanese)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
He probably found the Nazi Confederacy concept more likely

Don't really see how, as the Nazi goals fit more along the same lines as General Order 11

If he had demonized Northern men you would have lapped it up huh?

Of course not. I can't stand revisionist history passed off as factual. He wouldn't have had to demonize them, just take the next logical step from the reports of union actions in the Official Records. Of course maybe delve a bit more into General Grant's propensity for political corruption, if not outright organized crime, as well. As it was, at least he did portray Custer as a doddering old fool for awhile.

35 posted on 02/26/2006 3:48:09 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
I read a novel some years ago by the same name that was a fictional account of "what if". It was fairly well written, and I considered well thought out. There was no hatred to speak of, and the roles of north and south were reversed.
The north was a wasteland, and the south immensely prosperous (fairly visionary by today's standards). Blacks were not slaves in this book, they were segregated, and by much of their own choice. The black and white society co-existed side by side, with no hatred, or violence, however there was an alot of racism from the elders of both sides. It was an interesting read. I can't imagine this Spike Lee crap was based on the same book.
36 posted on 02/26/2006 3:50:47 PM PST by rikkir (My goal this year: Push a Moonbat over the edge by increasing our majorities!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Garvin

I agree with Garvin. I saw the trailer, and think that it is childish, stupid, vicious, and non-historical. That is, it is not at all what would have happened had the South won.

I do not think that slavery can coexist well with a modern, capitalist society. Where it does exist today is in places like Cuba, where a whole country is enslaved, and wouldn't you know it: Spike Lee loves Castro. Slavery is also a specialty of the Islamic world, which makes it very odd that people will become Black Moslems.


37 posted on 02/26/2006 4:07:56 PM PST by docbnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
what choice did Anderson have but to shift his forces to the most defensible post under his command?

A most prudent military move indeed, however he WAS NOT UNDER ATTACK, and moved into the most provocative position in the area. Maybe he should have folded his banners and moved his Garrison elsewhere, Or was that a not so honorable move and that macho-ism prevailed?

38 posted on 02/26/2006 4:09:41 PM PST by Robe (Rome did not create a great empire by talking, they did it by killing all those who opposed them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Robe
You should go back and read the information linked in Post #16 above. You do not understand it.
I draw your attention to the following legislation by the state of South Carolina:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory,..."

Note that the date of this legislation is 1836 and it does not say "will", as in "sometime in the future". It means "now" as in 1836. So the fort was Federal property in 1861. And it was constructed with Federal money.
Major Anderson also understood that he was placed in command of the fortifications of Charleston, and he placed his men and resources to maximize their security and the defensibility of his position in the face of his enemy, as any officer should do. The screams of outrage of his counterparts is actually evidence of their bad faith and bad intentions. Probably they expected the Major to give in without a struggle, presumably because he was from Kentucky and they expected him to be sympathetic to their cause. Therefore they expected him to stand still for their little coup and didn't have to hurry it. And so were terribly peeved when he did not.
Major Anderson understood the concept of defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and he fulfilled that duty to the letter, as an American officer should.
To insinuate that fulfilling his duty is "macho-ism"(sp) is beneath you.
39 posted on 02/26/2006 5:02:46 PM PST by Cheburashka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Radix

I saw the trailer, and it seemed like an old, played-out stereotype. If the South is so bad, why are so many people moving down here?

Secondly, this is very clearly a liberal piece of garbage. They are angry because the Southern and some Midwestern states are the only ones who keep this country from voting Socialist. How well do you think a "satire" of Massachusetts in which everybody was gay would go over with the MSM? Probably not very well.


40 posted on 02/26/2006 5:16:05 PM PST by SC33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Luke21
May I?
"I'm of southern descent and my people fought for the CSA"
same here
"Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan, fought a total war for victory against our people. It could not have been otherwise. "
sure it could have
"Lee refused to march on Washington after Bull Run."
General Lee was not in charge at that time
"It was open and undefended"
Not so , the Union Army although routed at Manassas was still a large and formidable force.
"That decision ended southern prospects."
the South always did have a problem with ambivalence. The lesson they left us is to trust the qualified officers in the field and do not let political or government staff officers mess things up trying to second guess their own good people in the field
"You cannot fight a gentleman's war."
Back then...sure you can . Even today and especially today , honor and nobility are priceless virtues that some of our leaders and many of our soldiers still have.
"Southern boys are fighting in Iraq now"
and may God bless them all , and our Yankee men and women too!
Thanks
41 posted on 02/26/2006 5:16:29 PM PST by LeoWindhorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
That done right enough for you?

Another Harry Turtledove fan!

Have you started the "Days of Infamy" series yet, where the Japanese successfully invade Hawaii?

Maven
42 posted on 02/26/2006 6:04:30 PM PST by Maven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Don't really see how, as the Nazi goals fit more along the same lines as General Order 11

But the whole master race concept fit the view of blacks as fit only for slavery as espoused by Lee, Davis, Jackson, etc., etc.

43 posted on 02/26/2006 6:06:27 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Robe
A most prudent military move indeed, however he WAS NOT UNDER ATTACK, and moved into the most provocative position in the area.

If he waited for an attack then he would have been stuck in a fort that could not be defended from the landward side. The reports of plans to seize the fort were well known, Charleston citizens had warned him of them. He actually moved to the least provocative, albeit most easily defended post. He moved his men away from the civilian population.

Maybe he should have folded his banners and moved his Garrison elsewhere...

You mean surrender and turn his posts over to the forces of the rebellion without orders from Washington to do so? What is prudent about that?

44 posted on 02/26/2006 6:10:45 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Maven
Have you started the "Days of Infamy" series yet, where the Japanese successfully invade Hawaii?

Seen it, but haven't tried it yet. Have you read Newt Gingrich's alternate history about Gettysburg and its aftermath?

45 posted on 02/26/2006 6:12:58 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
But the whole master race concept fit the view of blacks as fit only for slavery as espoused by Lee, Davis, Jackson, etc., etc.

Come now, more revisionism? We know Lee's beliefs on slavery (against), we know Jackson's belief on relations with blacks (taught a Sunday school for blacks prior to the war), and the loyalty his former slaves held for President Davis.

Surely you don't want to compare racial attitudes of these men to Grant, Sherman, and the union president do you? The Southerners could be said to have attitudes of enlightened men of the day (while we disagree with them now), while the other three were just outright racists, then and now.

46 posted on 02/26/2006 6:30:32 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
And I might point out the union officers didn't hold disdain for just blacks but all non-white races. Or were Sherman's views on Indians and Jews just another example of his 'enlightenment'?
47 posted on 02/26/2006 6:31:47 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

'Days of Infamy' drags. And I mean drags. It took me two weeks to finish that book. Good premise, and I hate to say it, but Turtledove may be running out of things to write about. The 'World in the Balance' series was even good, for about 5-6 of the books, but this latest one was too predictable


48 posted on 02/26/2006 6:37:14 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Re "Days of Infamy," et al.:

Seen it, but haven't tried it yet.

Oh you must - the two books so far are terrific.

Have you read Newt Gingrich's alternate history about Gettysburg and its aftermath?

No - it is worthwhile?

Maven
Turtledove - write faster, dammit! You, too, Cussler!
49 posted on 02/26/2006 6:38:41 PM PST by Maven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Please Non, you are not going to defend Spike Lee's vision of American history are you?


50 posted on 02/26/2006 6:39:47 PM PST by stainlessbanner (Gone Sheriff'n)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-102 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson