| Rick Smith 2005-12-11, 7:55 am |
|
"Joe Zitzelberger" <zberger@knology.net> wrote in message
news:zberger-C8A485.01595211122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
[snip]
> The page was quite long. And wholly unresponsive and inaccurate.
>
> In the first part, Joe McCarthy had nothing to do with HUAC or any
> blacklist.
As I state elsewhere, some do not make any
distinction among McCarthy, HUAC, and
blacklists. One such report is at
< http://www.moderntimes.com/palace/blacklist.htm >.
-----begin quote
It was the later HUAC hearings of March 1951
lead by John S. Wood (D- Georgia), and the 1952
Internal Security subcommittee headed my Senator
Pat McCarran that the "naming-of-names" became
the watch words. By 1951, Joseph R. McCarthy
was in full blossom. The entire country, Congress,
and the Truman administration share equally in what
was to come. It was from these latter hearings in
Washington and in Hollywood, that the infamous
BLACKLIST evolved.
-----end quote
> He was but a twinkle in the voters eyes when this was going
> on.
Or, for some, a black cloud on the horizon.
> In the second part, the so-called 'blacklist' did not exist. There was
> no official congressional list of actors that could not be employed.
> The US government never said "don't hire these people". There were only
> movie studios that made a sensible business decision that hiring
> communist agitators was bad for business.
As the above quote states, the [anti-communist]
blacklist was the result of the "naming-of-names"
started by Congressional hearings. Not every
person who reportedly made it to a blacklist was
a communist agitator; Nancy Davis comes to mind.
Whether it was "a sensible business decision" is
entirely subjective.
> Care to try again? Who did _McCarthy_ punish?
I already did, in later posts.
|