I don't like his 'horseface' rhetoric. My malicious side simply loves whatever buttons he presses to upset CNN/MSNBC et al. to point of saying Leftforge-level stupidity such as: 'radicalized more than Islam', and comparisons with Pearl Harbor or 9/11, and Nazis, or Stalin, and leaves bare the stupidity of leftist propaganda (to all but their regular viewers, apparently). And re: policy, already commented on this in some detail over a year ago - treating business as the enemy, and attempts to transform the US to become more like France is bad policy; pretty much anything anti-that is good policy. Many millennials grew up in an economy where all they ever saw was the mediocrity and malaise of the Obama years (admittedly post-crash, so lay his first year or so off on Bush if that comforts you). It's no surprise that ignorant people of this era, like the new Congresswoman Cortez, combine their ignorance of history with their entire adult life under Obama and conclude "socialism," instead of being mocked and ridiculed as beneath-stupidity or wholly-based-on-lies, should be embraced.
Probably not to be honest, considering: 1) this was a character we've already established was deliberately introduced as a political statement, thus rendering all of the following in quite a specific light, 2) it's a scene which specifically encapsulates something uniquely American at that precise moment (thanksgiving), 3) the scene came at a point in American history where racial segregation was intensely topical, 4) the symbolism is blindingly obvious, not to mention drawing on religious iconography, I think dismissing it out of hand is to seriously downplay the abilities and awareness of the artist to be honest. Out of curiosity, was it commented on at the time does anyone know?
That's nice dear, is repeating that to yourself comforting when you are defending your "political views"?
Looking, but here's some information. https://qz.com/571393/the-sweet-story-behind-peanuts-groundbreaking-first-black-character/
From a family/friend/relationship perspective, there is a reasonable seating order. Sally and Charlie and sister/brother, so they're next to each other. Peppermint Patty has a crush on Charlie, so she sat herself next to Charlie. Snoopy cooked the food, so he's by the Turkey where he can carve it, probably a bit more sense to have him at the head of the table. Linus and Sally are boyfriend/girlfriend so they're next to each other. Marcy is BFF with Peppermint Patty, so she sat herself closer to her. Franklin is sort of the loner/pity invite so he's by himself.
Nope. It was 1973. That shit still happens but it was a lot more common then. In 1973 schools in MS had been fully integrated for a whopping TWO YEARS. One doesn't have to be "butthurt" to look back at history and say, honestly, "that was some racist bullshit" Try it sometime.
It seems to me pretty obvious that the original had some white person over there and it was forbidden so they just moved that one and it left an imbalance. Obviously you could have drawn Snoopy on that side (and the turkey if you were really that interested in that detail) but that would have involved a more complex change to the original so they just removed the white person and left him alone - the easiest fix. (the person originally there might have been another character entirely, it's been so long since I watched it that I'm not sure if Lucy or Schroder or any of the rest were ever at this dinner to begin with)
Linus and Sally were never boyfriend/girlfriend. Sally has a crush on Linus, and Linus is mortified and tries to avoid her as much as possible.
More inconvienent facts... All those 70s racists were hiding in the closet and watching blacks on T.V
Possibly the nicest thing you've ever said about Obama. Actually, I'm curious: Is there anything you genuinely liked about Obama or of the Obama administration (and try not to be snarky -- that's honestly too easy)? Policy or about Obama himself (or his family) will do. To reciprocate, I'll do one for Trump (and I'll admit it can come off as a bit snarky; if so, mention it and I'll try to come up with something else): I think Trump is needed to highlight how much as a nation we need to progress to better ourselves, both in how we treat each other and how far we've turned a blind eye on ourselves. While I find him distasteful, both as a person and as his policies go, I think it's a much needed reminder of what we should be striving for, a bitter pill, if you will. He ironically may be the president we both deserve and need, though I will forever shudder at the need for it.
Yes, he's done wonders for civic engagement. Highest mid-term voter turnout since 1966 -- 47% of those eligible, up 10 points from 2014.
I'm all for that too. It's just that sometimes it seems like people are looking at everything specifically to see if, by some stretch of the imagination (or misunderstanding), they can infer racism in every little thing they look at. There was an incident in the news a couple of years ago where some white town councilman somewhere, frustrated with paperwork, said he felt like it was all going into some "administrative black hole." A black councilman was immediately insulted and demanded an apology.
It's all about virtue signaling and establishing moral superiority, then congratulating yourself for your superiority. It's also about people trying to whip up controversy and outrage for political & financial gain.
Oh, you mean like the Kavanaugh confirmation that Democrat congresspeople claimed was all about 'a bunch of white men?' Introducing and claiming racism and sexism etc., even when it has nothing to do with anything, at times seems to be the Dem's only policy argument for America. Even though it's not really policy, it's demagoguery playing to a hateful base (how ironic, given their critiques of Trump, though at least Trump's base don't try to picture themselves as morally righteous crusaders).
You're saying white men aren't at an advantage in the world we all live in? Without a hint of irony you say this.....how nice. Sure, it isn't a policy to have a set of values and principles which challenge hatred. Then again, without hyperbole by that logic it wasn't Hitler's policy to blame everything on the Jews, the blacks and the homosexuals. Nor was it policy to have them beaten in the streets long before there was ever any talk of final solutions. Ummm, religious fundamentalists don't portray themselves as righteous crusaders? "Make America Great Again" doesn't smack you of a "righteous crusade"?
Franklin seems to have gotten two sundaes AND is closer to both bowls of popcorn, so he ain't doing badly if he did choose his seat. If he didn't, it may be a commentary on the tendency of wipipo to distract minorities with cheap luxuries. See malt liquor for example. And I'm saying that as someone who might buy malt liquor due to the pricing. Friend of mine worked in the US in the 80s and bought the stuff all the time, but his boss berated him for buying "nigger beer" - "that's the cheap stuff we sell to keep 'em too drunk to cause trouble!".
The slopes article does not answer the question of why franklin was there directly. It is false that Schulz was racist, but it would seem that from the slopes article it would have been the decision of editors to keep franklin away from the other white children because it was seen as a problem for them to be sitting next to each other because it supposedly disturbed social racist ideas of the time. The article actually points to instances where editors objected to franklin sitting next to his white classmates. So that would be a yes to racism, but a no to the intellectual property owner but not the artist of the animated specials being racist, or even enough of a part of the production to have influence on the decision.
You probably would miss racism in roots or song of the south. Oh, and the morally righteous crusade party is the republicans. They are the ones trying to impose Christian morals on the rest of the world. The fact you would even claim it is the dems shows your lack of intellectual honesty. You actually think we are going to overlook the right wing conservatives who have tried to ban porn, alcohol, drugs, abortion, non Christian religions, sex between races, and communism based on morals and blame the dems for morally righteous behavior? You think we will ignore the people who promote abstinence only birth control, no sex before marriage, masturbation is evil, and Celine Dion is a demon from hell because she has a gender neutral baby clothing line? Go fuck yourself. No really, you just made biggest liar in the red room with that whopper.
Executive meddling based on racist ideals of the general public of the time. I think we can pin this one on the execs over an animator considering it seems they had these concerns.
Franklin could have been last minute guest seeing he is in a lawn chair or they may have been setting up Marcie with Franklin and they didn't hit it off.
