PDA

View Full Version : 1999 Charlton Heston speech



Adrian II
04-06-2008, 10:19
The Frontroom has a thread on the demise of Charlton Heston. I didn't like his movie roles and I didn't like some of his views, but he was quite a character and he has been unjustly vilified on several counts. He was certainly an accomplished speaker. I feel he answered his critics adequately, no: brilliantly, in a 1999 speech on America's 'Culture Wars'. The speech -- clearly backroom material -- is so incredibly good that I filed it years ago. Now is the moment.

Charlton Heston, speaking on 'Winning the Cultural War,' Tuesday, February 16, 7:30 pm, Ames Courtroom, Austin Hall:


I remember my son when he was five, explaining to his kindergarten class what his father did for a living.

"My Daddy," he said, "pretends to be people."

There have been quite a few of them.

Prophets from the Old and New Testaments, a couple of Christian saints, generals of various nationalities and different centuries, several kings, three American presidents, a French cardinal and two geniuses, including Michelangelo.

If you want the ceiling re-painted I’ll do my best.

It’s just that there always seems to be a lot of different fellows up here. I’m never sure which one of them gets to talk. Right now, I guess I’m the guy.

As I pondered our visit tonight it struck me: If my Creator gave me the gift to connect you with the hearts and minds of those great men, then I want to use that same gift now to re-connect you with your own sense of liberty ... your own freedom of thought ... your own compass for what is right.

Dedicating the memorial at Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln said of America, "We are now engaged in a great Civil War, testing whether this nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure." Those words are true again. . . I believe that we are again engaged in a great civil war, a cultural war that’s about to hijack your birthright to think and say what lives in your heart.

I fear you no longer trust the pulsing lifeblood of liberty inside you . . . the stuff that made this country rise from wilderness into the miracle that it is.

Let me back up a little. About a year ago I became president of the National Rifle Association, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. I ran for office, I was elected, and now I serve ... I serve as a moving target for the media who’ve called me everything from "ridiculous" and "duped" to a " brain-injured, senile, crazy old man." I know, I’m pretty old ... but I sure Lord ain’t senile.

As I have stood in the crosshairs of those who target Second Amendment freedoms, I’ve realized that firearms are not the only issue.

No, it’s much, much bigger than that.

I’ve come to understand that a cultural war is raging across our land, in which, with Orwellian fervor, certain acceptable thoughts and speech are mandated.

For example, I marched for civil rights with Dr. King in 1963 - long before Hollywood found it fashionable. But when I told an audience last year that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride or anyone else’s pride, they called me a racist.

I’ve worked with brilliantly talented homosexuals all my life. But when I told an audience that gay rights should extend no further than your rights or my rights, I was called a homophobe.

I served in World War II against the Axis powers. But during a speech, when I drew an analogy between singling out innocent Jews and singling out innocent gun owners, I was called an anti-Semite.

Everyone I know knows I would never raise a closed fist against my country.

But when I asked an audience to oppose this cultural persecution, I was compared to Timothy McVeigh.

From Time magazine to friends and colleagues, they’re essentially saying, "Chuck, how dare you speak your mind like that? You are using language not authorized for public consumption!"

But I am not afraid. If Americans believed in political correctness, we’d still be King George’s boys - subjects bound to the British crown.

In his book, "The End of Sanity," Martin Gross writes that "blatantly irrational behavior is rapidly being established as the norm in almost every area of human endeavor. There seem to be new customs, new rules,

new anti-intellectual theories regularly foisted on us from every direction.

Underneath, the nation is roiling. Americans know something without a name is undermining the country, turning the mind mushy when it comes to separating truth from falsehood and right from wrong. And they don’t like it."

Let me read a few examples.

At Antioch college in Ohio, young men seeking intimacy with a coed must get verbal permission at each step of the process from kissing to petting to final copulation ... all clearly spelled out in a printed college directive.

In New Jersey, despite the death of several patients nationwide who had been infected by dentists who had concealed their AIDs - the state commissioner announced that health providers who are HIV-positive need not….need not. . . .tell their patients that they are infected.

At William and Mary, students tried to change the name of the school team "The Tribe" because it was supposedly insulting to local Indians, only to learn that authentic Virginia chiefs truly like the name.

In San Francisco, city fathers passed an ordinance protecting the rights of transvestites to cross-dress on the job, and for transsexuals to have separate toilet facilities while undergoing sex change surgery.

In New York City, kids who don’t speak a word of Spanish have been placed in bilingual classes to learn their three R’s in Spanish solely because their last names sound Hispanic.

At the University of Pennsylvania, in a state where thousands died at Gettysburg opposing slavery, the president of that college officially set up segregated dormitory space for black students.

Yeah, I know . . . that’s out of bounds now. Dr. King said "Negroes."

Jimmy Baldwin and most of us on the March said "black." But it’s a no-no now.

For me, hyphenated identities are awkward . . . particularly "Native-American. " I’m a Native American, for God’s sake. I also happen to be a blood-initiated brother of the Miniconjou Sioux.

On my wife’s side, my grandson is a thirteenth generation native American . . . with the capital letter on "American."

Finally, just last month . . . David Howard, head of the Washington D.C. Office of Public Advocate, used the word "niggardly" while talking to colleagues about budgetary matters. Of course, "niggardly" means stingy or scanty. But within days Howard was forced to publicly apologize and resign.

As columnist Tony Snow wrote: "David Howard got fired because some people in public employ were morons who (a) didn’t know the meaning of niggardly,’ (b) didn’t know how to use a dictionary to discover the meaning, and (c) actually demanded that he apologize for their ignorance. "

What does all this mean? It means that telling us what to think has evolved into telling us what

to say, so telling us what to do can’t be far behind.

Before you claim to be a champion of free thought, tell me: Why did political correctness originate on America’s campuses? And why do you continue to tolerate it?

Why do you, who’re supposed to debate ideas, surrender to their suppression?

Let’s be honest. Who here thinks your professors can say what they really believe?

That scares me to death. It should scare you too, that the superstition of political correctness rules the halls of reason.

You are the best and the brightest. You, here in the fertile cradle of American academia, here in the castle of learning on the Charles River, you are the cream. But I submit that you, and your counterparts across the land, are the most socially conformed and politically silenced generation since Concord Bridge. And as long as you validate that ... and abide it ... you are - by your grandfathers’ standards - cowards.

Here’s another example. Right now at more than one major university, Second Amendment scholars and researchers are being told to shut up about their findings or they’ll lose their jobs. Why? Because their research findings would undermine big-city mayor’s pending lawsuits that seek to extort hundreds of millions of dollars from firearm manufacturers.

I don’t care what you think about guns. But if you are not shocked at that, I am shocked at you. Who will guard the raw material of unfettered ideas, if not you? Democracy is dialogue!

Who will defend the core value of academia, if you supposed soldiers of free thought and expression lay down your arms and plead, "Don’t shoot me."

If you talk about race, it does not make you a racist.

If you see distinctions between the genders, it does not make you sexist.

If you think critically about a denomination, it does not make you anti-religion.

If you accept but don’t celebrate homosexuality, it does not make you a homophobe.

Don’t let America’s universities continue to serve as incubators for this rampant epidemic of new McCarthyism.

But what can you do? How can anyone prevail against such pervasive social subjugation? The answer’s been here all along.

I learned it 36 years ago, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C., standing with Dr. Martin Luther King and two hundred thousand people.

You simply ... disobey.

Peaceably, yes. Respectfully, of course. Nonviolently, absolutely.

But when told how to think or what to say or how to behave, we don’t. We disobey social protocol that stifles and stigmatizes personal freedom.

I learned the awesome power of disobedience from Dr. King . . . who learned it from Gandhi, and Thoreau, and Jesus, and every other great man who led those in the right against those with the might.

Disobedience is in our DNA. We feel innate kinship with that disobedient spirit that tossed tea into Boston Harbor, that sent Thoreau to jail, that refused to sit in the back of the bus, that protested a war in Viet Nam.

In that same spirit, I am asking you to disavow cultural correctness with massive disobedience of rogue authority, social directives and onerous laws that weaken personal freedom.

But be careful ... it hurts. Disobedience demands that you put yourself at risk. Dr. King stood on lots of balconies.

You must be willing to be humiliated ... to endure the modern-day equivalent of the police dogs at Montgomery and the water cannons at Selma.

You must be willing to experience discomfort. I’m not complaining, but my own decades of social activism have left their mark on me.

Let me tell you a story. A few years back I heard about a rapper named Ice-T who was selling a CD called "Cop Killer" celebrating ambushing and murdering police officers. It was being marketed by none other than Time/Warner, the biggest entertainment conglomerate in the world. Police across the country were outraged. Rightfully so - at least one had been murdered. But Time/Warner was stonewalling because the CD was a cash cow for them, and the media were tiptoeing around it because the rapper was black.

I heard Time/Warner had a stockholders meeting scheduled in Beverly Hills. I owned some shares at the time, so I decided to attend. What I did there was against the advice of my family and colleagues. I asked for the floor. To a hushed room of a thousand average American stockholders, I simply read the full lyrics of "Cop Killer" - every vicious, vulgar, instructional word.

"I GOT MY 12 GAUGE SAWED OFF I GOT MY HEADLIGHTS TURNED OFF I’M ABOUT TO BUST SOME SHOTS OFF I’M ABOUT TO DUST SOME COPS OFF..." It got worse, a lot worse. I won’t read the rest of it to you. But trust me, the room was a sea of shocked, frozen, blanched faces. The Time/Warner executives squirmed in their chairs and stared at their shoes. They hated me for that.

Then I delivered another volley of sick lyric brimming with racist filth, where Ice-T fantasizes about sodomizing two 12-year old nieces of Al and Tipper Gore.

"SHE PUSHED HER BUTT AGAINST MY ...."

Well, I won’t do to you here what I did to them. Let’s just say I left the room in echoing silence. When I read the lyrics to the waiting press corps, one of them said "We can’t print that." ‘‘I know," I replied, "but Time/Warner’s selling it.

Two months later, Time/Warner terminated Ice-T’s contract. I’ll never be offered another film by Warners, or get a good review from Time magazine. But disobedience means you must be willing to act, not just talk. When a mugger sues his elderly victim for defending herself... jam the switchboard of the district attorney’s office.

When your university is pressured to lower standards until 80% of the students graduate with honors . . . choke the halls of the board of regents.

When an 8-year-old boy pecks a girl’s cheek on the playground and gets hauled into court for sexual harassment . . . march on that school and block its doorways. When someone you elected is seduced by political power and betrays you . . . petition them, oust them, banish them. When Time magazine’s cover portrays millennium nuts as deranged, crazy Christians holding a cross as it did last month . . . boycott their magazine and the products it advertises.

So that this nation may long endure, I urge you to follow in the hallowed footsteps of the great disobediences of history that freed exiles, founded religions, defeated tyrants, and yes, in the hands of an aroused rabble in arms and a few great men, by God’s grace, built this country.

If Dr. King were here, I think he would agree.

Thank you.

Sarmatian
04-06-2008, 11:11
Interesting speech. I don't personally like him due to his obssesion with guns, but he did make some valid points

Geoffrey S
04-06-2008, 11:27
Excellent speech. It also reaffirms how disgusted I felt at that part in Bowling for Columbine, where Michael Moore harasses the man and splices together various speeches into a lie.

His was a classic case of not necessarily agreeing with someone's views, but respecting his right to voice them.

Tribesman
04-06-2008, 12:17
Nice speech .

Redleg
04-06-2008, 13:10
So that this nation may long endure, I urge you to follow in the hallowed footsteps of the great disobediences of history that freed exiles, founded religions, defeated tyrants, and yes, in the hands of an aroused rabble in arms and a few great men, by God’s grace, built this country.

You dont have to believe in exactly what the man believed in or even share his views. However he did understand what the basic freedom of democracy was with this paragraph.

Banquo's Ghost
04-06-2008, 16:15
There is a tradition in the Backroom that political discussion of a person's legacy (unless very clearly a tyrant) is postponed until that person's funeral has passed, as a mark of respect.

The original post is a fine tribute, and so I intend to leave the thread open for discussion - as long as we can continue to observe constructive commentaries for the next few days.

Anyone who tries to devolve this into a standard yah-boo gun thread will get severely daisyed and the thread locked.

I trust I have made myself clear. :bow:

Adrian II
04-06-2008, 17:15
There is a tradition in the Backroom that political discussion of a person's legacy (unless very clearly a tyrant) is postponed until that person's funeral has passed, as a mark of respect.I must disagree with you here; there is no such tradition. Hoever, there is a rule.

We had something of an altercation back in 2005 after the Pope died. A member was banned for celebrating his death in the most spiteful manner in a Backroom thread.

Some months earlier, the same had happened after the demise of Yassir Arafat; he had barely been declared dead when members opened a thread to vilify the man, his party and his cause.

Whether the Pope or Yassir Arafat were tyrants is a matter to be discussed openly and fairly. That is what the Backroom is for. Poking fun at the deceased and/or his followers is clearly out of bounds. This was confirmed in a Watchtower thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=45749&highlight=arafat), wherein TosaInu, as usual, took final responsibility and had the final word. His ruling stated that members have the right to express their views, but not to celebrate someone's death. Period.

Methinks this is a very reasonable solution. This rule has been upheld until today, even when less admired or less high-brow figures like Anna Nicole Smith died. They were openly discussed, but not in a demeaning fashion, and rightly so.

P.S. Sorry for being an old fart, I will of course abide by your decision. I would just ask to to reconsider.

Tribesman
04-06-2008, 18:52
OK perhaps it waas inappropriate , I in no way meant to suggest that the natural occurance of his demise would lead to a lowering of his body temperature which meant the feds could take his guns from his hands .
I appologise most humbly if it was taken the wrong way .

KukriKhan
04-06-2008, 19:16
I must disagree with you here; there is no such tradition. Hoever, there is a rule.

We had something of an altercation back in 2005 after the Pope died. A member was banned for celebrating his death in the most spiteful manner in a Backroom thread.

Some months earlier, the same had happened after the demise of Yassir Arafat; he had barely been declared dead when members opened a thread to vilify the man, his party and his cause.

Whether the Pope or Yassir Arafat were tyrants is a matter to be discussed openly and fairly. That is what the Backroom is for. Poking fun at the deceased and/or his followers is clearly out of bounds. This was confirmed in a Watchtower thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=45749&highlight=arafat), wherein TosaInu, as usual, took final responsibility and had the final word. His ruling stated that members have the right to express their views, but not to celebrate someone's death. Period.

Methinks this is a very reasonable solution. This rule has been upheld until today, even when less admired or less high-brow figures like Anna Nicole Smith died. They were openly discussed, but not in a demeaning fashion, and rightly so.

P.S. Sorry for being an old fart, I will of course abide by your decision. I would just ask to to reconsider.

THIS THREAD (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=85382), the Falwell RIP from May 07, solidified the "postpone critiques until after the funeral" policy. It doesn't contradict TosaInu's decree of '05, but rather sets an observable 'time-out' period. After the funeral, it's open season: celebrate or denigrate the dead guy/gal as your conscience dictates (within forum rules).

The idea was to set a more or less definitive time limit, so that anti-Pope or anti-Arafat, or pro-Osama (?) posts would not be held up indefinitely, and yet respect for the dead, and consideration of the bereaved (however inspired or misguided you may think them to be) could be observed.

RIP Mr. Heston.

Banquo's Ghost
04-06-2008, 20:12
On reflection, Adrian makes a very good and typically well argued point.

My esteemed colleague further clarifies that the rule is about mocking the deceased, rather than discussing their political legacy.

I apologise for the harshness of my original post and my misunderstanding of the rules.

May I ask that we return to topic whilst observing the respect for the dead in the manner Kukri so eloquently outlines.

I have derailed this thread sufficiently, so any further concerns should be addressed to me in PM or to the Backroom Watchtower.


:bow:

ICantSpellDawg
04-07-2008, 04:00
Good Speech

spmetla
04-07-2008, 05:47
Excellent speech, saved it to my computer.

Oleander Ardens
04-07-2008, 06:12
Really liked it. It also shows that he stood up for what he was believing in, and this were mostly good things. Not many can say that.

Papewaio
04-07-2008, 06:36
While reading it my mind used his gravely voice to speak it out.

Certainly had a lot of good points.

Vladimir
04-07-2008, 15:02
OK perhaps it waas inappropriate , I in no way meant to suggest that the natural occurance of his demise would lead to a lowering of his body temperature which meant the feds could take his guns from his hands .
I appologise most humbly if it was taken the wrong way .

Personally I'm offended by your punctuation and spelling! However I don't think the joke you referenced would be in poor taste, depending on wording.

Mouzafphaerre
04-07-2008, 16:15
.
Excellent rhetoric, brilliant dialectic.

Wasted for such a silly cause. :no:

His points are still well made and mostly valid though.
.

Don Corleone
04-07-2008, 17:33
He wasn't speaking about the 2nd ammendment, per se. He was speaking of the surrendering of one's liberties, by default through sheer cowardice. His words touched a deep chord in me, and from the bottom of my patriotic heart, I thank you Adrian for highlighting them here.

The Political Correctness menace of which Charlton Heston rails against is a force which has no true political leanings. People on the Right in America naturally assume it is a product of the Left, and in reality, it did begin there, a long time ago. But the idea that some ideas are taboo, that we must not offend, that we must not say certain things because the ideas themselves are intolerable, this is inherently unAmerican, and its something that has pervaded our society and tainted the collective thought process of people at all levels, of all political viewpoints.

Think I'm wrong?

Explain why Ward Churchchill was fired. Sure, the man has some rather inflammatory views. But who cares? Since when did criticizing the American government in general, and the Bush administration in particular, become a censurable offense? If he was fulfilling the requirements of his job, if he was teaching classes, enlightening his students, and teaching them how to learn, who gives a rat's ass what sort of foolishness he wants to espouse. I would argue that the Ward Churchills of the world are THE canaries in the proverbial coalmines that well functioning democracies need so desparately. Despise what he said, rebutt it, ridicule it even. But do not silence it.

Tell me why there's not more scholarly research into the possiblity that Jesus took a wife and sired children. I personally think it's a fool's errand, and there's no evidence for it, but why attempt to silence the discussion? Suffer fools to speak their nonsense, so that you may understand why they be fools, and maybe, if you're lucky, they will too.

And finally, and this one cuts both ways, why is a discussion of evolution (and intelligent design, for that matter) so dangerous and need to be controlled? Regardless of your views on how we came to be here, certainly all of our viewpoints can tolerate a little scrutiny. If they cannot, should we be holding them in the first place?

In my mind, the American Right took a wrong turn at Albequerque. Some time back, they adopted the very behavior they used to rail against. And now, political debates have devolved into a contest of who can be more offended than whom, and who's offense trumps whom's.

I've got news for everyone, LIFE is offensive. Child sexual abuse, which all the Political Correctness in the world won't eradicate, is one of the most offensive things on the planet. The answer to offensive viewpoints isn't to bury one's head in the sand by enforcing a code of silence. It's to air them, drag these views kicking and screaming out into the light of day and when exposed to knowledge and reason, watch them wither and die.

Bully for Charlton Heston, that speech is being posted on my wall. And bully for Adrian for seeing it, noting it, recording it, and refreshing us with it now.

Crazed Rabbit
04-07-2008, 17:37
Explain why Ward Churchchill was fired.

Not to derail the thread, but because he's a plagiarist and a liar?

CR

Don Corleone
04-07-2008, 17:42
Not to derail the thread, but because he's a plagiarist and a liar?

CR

Okay, fair enough. He got caught on a plagarism charge, but you know what I'm saying. I found the man's views as despicable as anyone else,, but silencing him wasn't the answer. I rely heavily on Voltaire in this instance, and I think you understand my analogy (even if I picked a poor example to make it).

Lemur
04-07-2008, 17:47
To the Ward Churchill point, he has not been imprisoned, his books haven't been burned, and no court has put a gag order on him. He has not been silenced. He just got booted out of a State-funded professorship.

As for discussions of evolution, it's hard to have a sane discussion with people who trample all over the very concept of a theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Criterion_for_scientific_status). The deliberate mixing of theological criteria with scientific does nothing to clarify peoples' positions, and serves only to obfuscate.

Everything else you said is spot-on, Don. Scared cows don't serve anyone except themselves. And an exceptional speech by Chuck Heston, as well.

Papewaio
04-08-2008, 01:58
The Political Correctness menace of which Charlton Heston railed against is a force which has no true political leanings.

Agree in total... just need to change the tense.

LeftEyeNine
04-08-2008, 02:05
:poland:

Xiahou
04-08-2008, 05:10
A great speech by a great man. :bow:

Lemur
04-08-2008, 05:57
Speaking of sacred cows, I am no atheist, but I'm amazed at the anger and disrespect people feel free to heap on 'em:


Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) interrupted atheist activist Rob Sherman during his testimony Wednesday afternoon before the House State Government Administration Committee in Springfield and told him, "What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous . . . it's dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!

"This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God," Davis said. "Get out of that seat . . . You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon."

Alexander the Pretty Good
04-08-2008, 07:50
I have newfound respect for Heston!

Papewaio
04-08-2008, 08:21
Speaking of sacred cows, I am no atheist, but I'm amazed at the anger and disrespect people feel free to heap on 'em:


Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) interrupted atheist activist Rob Sherman during his testimony Wednesday afternoon before the House State Government Administration Committee in Springfield and told him, "What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous . . . it's dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!

"This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God," Davis said. "Get out of that seat . . . You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon."

She seems to be precisely the person Heston was speaking about. She is very PC and anti-first and anti-second amendment. And obviously anti-free speech.

Davis: I don’t know what you have against God, but some of us don’t have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings. And it’s really a tragedy -- it’s tragic -- when a person who is engaged in anything related to God, they want to fight. They want to fight prayer in school. I don’t see you (Sherman) fighting guns in school. You know? I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children.… What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous--

Sherman: What’s dangerous, ma’am?

Davis: It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! Now you will go to court to fight kids to have the opportunity to be quiet for a minute. But damn if you’ll go to [court] to fight for them to keep guns out of their hands. I am fed up! Get out of that seat!

Sherman: Thank you for sharing your perspective with me, and I’m sure that if this matter does go to court---

Davis: You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.


Edit: IF I was an American this would probably be enough to go against Obama.

Vladimir
04-08-2008, 13:32
She seems to be precisely the person Heston was speaking about. She is very PC and anti-first and anti-second amendment. And obviously anti-free speech.

Davis: I don’t know what you have against God, but some of us don’t have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings. And it’s really a tragedy -- it’s tragic -- when a person who is engaged in anything related to God, they want to fight. They want to fight prayer in school. I don’t see you (Sherman) fighting guns in school. You know? I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children.… What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous--

Sherman: What’s dangerous, ma’am?

Davis: It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! Now you will go to court to fight kids to have the opportunity to be quiet for a minute. But damn if you’ll go to [court] to fight for them to keep guns out of their hands. I am fed up! Get out of that seat!

Sherman: Thank you for sharing your perspective with me, and I’m sure that if this matter does go to court---

Davis: You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.


Edit: IF I was an American this would probably be enough to go against Obama.

:laugh4: Sounds like your typical politically correct Democrat.