MovieChat Forums > The Chamber (1996) Discussion > Racist but true

Racist but true

posted 20 years ago by anonymous12
10 replies | jump to latest

I think the whole talk Gene Hackman's character had about the civils rights movement was very bigoted but also very true. Specifically at the part when it came to talking about how the klan should have remained anti-black rather than going anti-black and anti-semitic. Think about it, in real life, the 1964 disappearal of three civil rights workers. The two white workers were both jewish and after World War II, America wasn't ready to continue anti-semitic attitudes. Also think about overall black and jewish conditions. Jews were looked upon badly in the south for defending blacks in the civil rights movement but still managed to live well. Blacks lived horribly everywhere and America was and still is in no place to change that. America was however willing to be sympathetic to anti-semitism because of world war II and because Jews were moving up on the social ladder deservingly. The whole idea of anti-semitism being more costly than being anti-black while bigoted is the truest thing about the civil rights movement.

[–] r3e2d7m5 19 years ago

I don't recall ever seeing a Gene Hackman movie I didn't like.

I find it interesting though that eight years earlier he played a "good guy" as an FBI agent in "Mississippi Burning" - which was based on true events.

This makes me wonder if:
a. he has a special interest in the civil rights movement, and
b. this movie was also based on a true story.

[–] kman1020 19 years ago

I agree about there not being a "bad" Gene Hackman movie. His character seemed to want to find some sort of redemption; but he knew he was bad and deserved to die. This movie probably would have done a lot better had it not come out so close to Ghosts of Mississippi; also an engaging movie. I will not comment about the first person's analysis because I am not 100% familiar with the whys and wherefores. All I know is hate starts wars, and it never solves anything. Learn to accept people for who they are, and then make up your mind whether or not they are someone you care to consort with them.

[–] GraeShadowe 18 years ago

I agree about Gene Hackman not making a bad movie, but the original point of the thread:
Keep in mind "Northern Liberal Jews" were some of the driving force behind the Civil Rights movement; which made them "N----- lovers"; a threat and target of the status quo of the South at that time.
A Holocaust in a foriegn land 20 years prior was a small concern when the "threat" was in their own region. Keep in mind that the Klan is not fond of ANYONE who isn't W.hite A.nglo-S.axon P.rotestant, and their poison has spread WAAAAY beyond the South.
Not the most tolerant bunch, to say the least.
Their "cause" was doomed loooong before they started targeting Jews.
Like the C.R.I.P. and other gangs, their purpose and motivations from relatively honorable beginnings were bastardized when it got too powerful, and too many knotheads in it.

Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GraeShadowe 18 years ago

"ridiculous assumptions"?
It's neither ridiculous nor an assumption that Gene Hackman was in this movie and he is a fine actor, and that Gene Hackman makes good movies; ergo, a fine Gene Hackman movie.

Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.

[–] jgain 18 years ago

I don't agree. I think that while LBJ was for civil rights, him and the rest of the country were content with allowing the south to do pretty much what they wanted. Then when the three boys (Jewish, black, or not) were killed, I think that sent a sense of outrage in LBJ (and a lot of other people) that things were just too much. It was one thing to hold on to segregation for a little while longer, but another altogether to murder people for trying to change it. That was the beginning of the end for segregation, but I don't think the fact that Jewish people were involved had anything to do with it. I think if it were three WASPs from New York, the reaction would have been the same...

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Zuider_Zee 11 years ago

I think that while LBJ was for civil rights

LBJ was for votes, first and foremost.

“I’ll have those n!ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” —Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One -

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”—LBJ

He wasn't concerned with civil rights. He was concerned with political expediency.

[–] TheManInOil 12 years ago

You think that after WWII 'America wasn't ready to continue anti-semetic attitudes'? lol

You're talking out of your ass.

"I'll book you. I'll book you on something. I'll find something in the book to book you on."

[–] HarlemEagle42 (17800) 2 years ago

The young fellas chanting "Jews will not replace us" at Charlottesville comes to mind pretty quickly.