National

John Lewis Tells His Truth About ‘Selma’

Published

10 years ago

January 21, 2015

Alabama state troopers swing nightsticks to break up the “Bloody Sunday” voting march in Selma, Ala., on March 7, 1965. John Lewis, front right, of the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee, is put on the ground by a trooper (Associated Press)

(Los Angeles Times) – The role of art in our society is not to reenact history but to offer an interpretation of human experience as seen through the eyes of the artist. The philosopher Aristotle says it best: “The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inner significance.”

The movie “Selma” is a work of art. It conveys the inner significance of the ongoing struggle for human dignity in America, a cornerstone of our identity as a nation. It breaks through our too-often bored and uninformed perception of our history, and it confronts us with the real human drama our nation struggled to face 50 years ago.

And “Selma” does more than bring history to life, it enlightens our understanding of our lives today. It proves the efficacy of nonviolent action and civic engagement, especially when government seems unresponsive. With poignant grace, it demonstrates that Occupy, inconvenient protests and die-ins that disturb our daily routine reflect a legacy of resistance that led many to struggle and die for justice, not centuries ago, but in our lifetimes. It reminds us that the day could be approaching when that price will be required again.

But now this movie is being weighed down with a responsibility it cannot possibly bear. It’s portrayal of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s role in the Selma marches has been called into question. And yet one two-hour movie cannot tell all the stories encompassed in three years of history — the true scope of the Selma campaign. It does not portray every element of my story, Bloody Sunday, or even the life of Martin Luther King Jr. We do not demand completeness of other historical dramas, so why is it required of this film?

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Few Candidates File for Ferguson Election Despite Protests

Don't Miss

MLK Honored; Scattered Protests Over Black Deaths by Police

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of January 15 – 21, 2025

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of January 15 – 21, 2025

Published

3 days ago

January 17, 2025

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of January 8 – 14, 2025

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of January 8 – 14, 2025

Published

1 week ago

January 11, 2025

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

#NNPA BlackPress

Supreme Court Decision Confirms Convicted Felon Will Assume Presidency

NNPA NEWSWIRE — In a 5-4 ruling, the court stated that Trump’s concerns could “be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal” and emphasized that the burden of sentencing was “relatively insubstantial” given that Trump will not face prison time. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberal justices in the majority, with four conservative justices dissenting.

Published

2 weeks ago

January 10, 2025

Stacy M. Brown

By Stacy M. Brown, NNPA Newswire Senior National Correspondent
@StacyBrownMedia

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected President-elect Donald Trump’s emergency request to block criminal proceedings in his New York hush money case, ensuring that a sentencing hearing will proceed as scheduled on Friday. The decision makes it official that, on January 20, for the first time in its history, the United States will inaugurate a convicted felon as its president.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court stated that Trump’s concerns could “be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal” and emphasized that the burden of sentencing was “relatively insubstantial” given that Trump will not face prison time. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberal justices in the majority, with four conservative justices dissenting.

Trump was convicted in May for falsifying business records related to a $130,000 payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg argued that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to intervene in a state criminal case, particularly before all appeals in state courts were exhausted.

Trump’s legal team claimed the sentencing process would interfere with his transition to power and argued that evidence introduced during the trial included official actions protected under the Supreme Court’s prior ruling granting former presidents immunity for official conduct. Merchan, the New York judge who presided over the trial, ruled in December that the evidence presented was unrelated to Trump’s duties as president.

Prosecutors dismissed Trump’s objections, stating that the sentencing would take less than an hour and could be attended virtually. They said the public interest in proceeding to sentencing outweighed the President-elect’s claims of undue burden.

Justice Samuel Alito, one of the four dissenting justices, confirmed speaking to Trump by phone on Wednesday. Alito insisted the conversation did not involve the case, though the call drew criticism given his previous refusals to recuse himself from politically sensitive matters.

The sentencing hearing is set for Friday at 9:30 a.m. in Manhattan. As the nation moves closer to an unprecedented inauguration, questions about the implications of a convicted felon assuming the presidency remain.

“No one is above the law,” Bragg said.