ElCid
-
Posts
19,340 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by ElCid
-
-
It's interesting how many of these showed up in so many shows of the 50's and 60's.
-
5 hours ago, Sepiatone said:
THE SAINT film series involves espionage, and too, OSS117 series of films beginning in the '50's (I think),
Then too, there's THE FALCON films, MR. MOTO , and probably others that escape me now.
Sepiatone
As a big fan of both The Saint and The Falcon movies, I don't think they would be considered as spy films. Both were pretty much mystery/detective movies. A couple of the movies may have somewhat involved espionage, but primarily from the mystery/detective viewpoint.
Now, The Saint TV series with Roger Moore was a spy series, as I recall.
-
19 hours ago, Vautrin said:
Reconstruction was mostly a pro forma procedure that the Confederate states didn't have much
trouble in accepting. Then they mostly went back to their old way of doing things, minus actual
slavery. And while there was oppression of black people throughout the U.S., it was worst of all
in the former Confederate states. So from the viewpoint of today that is probably the most
significant thing about Reconstruction.
We could beat this death. Officially "Reconstruction" initially had little to do with correcting oppression of blacks in the South. The only stipulation for readmission to U.S. and Congress was to swear allegiance to the U.S. and to adopt the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery. The Southern states did and so technically were "reconstructed." The problem came about when the Radical Republicans in the North realized what the Southern governments were up to as far as oppression and denying blacks rights. They then realized that their desire to severely punish the South and its war-time leaders was not going to happen. In addition, they realized that the initially reconstructed states' Democratic representatives and senators in Congress would join with the Northern and Western Democrats and overrule the Radical Republicans' agenda.
That is why the Radical Republicans rushed to refuse to accept the duly elected representatives and senators from the South, thereby denying them their right to vote in Congress. This gave the Radical Republicans the majority they needed to pass regulations and amendments that would punish the South and guarantee black rights. One of these rights was to vote for Republicans in the South. Thereby excluding the previously elected representatives and senators from the South and replacing them with Republicans.[this was covered in the program]
On the whole the Reconstruction period was not about oppression of blacks in the former Confederate states, it was about how the Federal government, the Radical Republicans in Washington and the U.S. Army came to control the Southern states and their governments. They then implemented policies to protect the blacks up until 1876. More significantly, Reconstruction was an attempt by the Federal government (Radical Republicans) to control the South and to punish it. If eliminating oppression of the blacks in the South was the most significant part of Reconstruction, why were the Republicans in Washington and the North so quick to abandon it totally in 1876?
-
34 minutes ago, Hibi said:
Yeah, overall, not very impressive. Glad I caught it, but not something I'd watch again. Borderline noir. Took a long time for the plot to kick in. (Fitzgerald).
Yeah I noticed it took a long time for Fitzgerald to show up.
-
I had seen Nobody Lives Forever some years ago, but had forgotten it. A couple of the dining scenes seemed familiar and then the scenes on the dock confirmed it. It was OK, but not impressive.
Not sure, but according to listings, the 10 AM Sunday showing was actually In a Lonely Place. Didn't check to see if that actually was the Noir Alley on Sunday.
-
14 hours ago, Vautrin said:
Perhaps the reintegration of the confederate states into the union was the immediate concern,
but in hindsight it was the return to the continued oppression of blacks after the war that would
be the most important factor for the future. I know there's a long-term debate among historians
about how harmful the carpetbaggers actually were. Likely still going on.
That is the view from today. The oppression of blacks was tolerated by all states and the Federal government pretty much up until about 1965. While Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954, schools in South and even elsewhere were not really integrated until the mid-60's. Same for accommodations, restaurants, etc. There was discrimination, oppression and voter suppression of blacks in North and West up until the mid-20th century, if not later.
Regardless the purpose of Reconstruction was to establish new governments in the former Confederate states acceptable to the U.S. Congress. The resurgence of black oppression was part of the Redemption period.
-
16 hours ago, Vautrin said:
I can understand why it focused on the freed slaves. Their future was the main concern of
Reconstruction. I think the struggle between Johnson's Reconstruction "lite" and the more
stringent one of the Radical Republicans was given its share of the program as was the story
of Grant trying to get a hold on the violence of southern resisters. And the election of 1876
and how the political deal making around it put an end to Reconstruction was explained
pretty thoroughly.
Were the freed slaves "the main concern of Reconstruction?" I don't think so. It was a concern, but "reconstructing" the defeated Confederate states was the primary objective. After Johnson's plan was defeated, punishment of the South became the main concern of Reconstruction. Using the freed slaves was often a tool of the Radical Republicans in the North and Congress in order to accomplish their goals of punishing and reconstructing the South. The carpetbaggers in control of Southern state governments likewise used the freed slaves to accomplish their goals, frequently to embezzle money from Southerners and the Southern governments.
Johnson's reconstruction plan was the same as Lincoln's except for Johnson wanting to punish the rich whites.
-
23 minutes ago, Vautrin said:
Four hours on the Reconstruction seems okay, though I'm not sure how far along the last two
hours of the program will go. I wouldn't call it a definitive version of history as one could make
the argument that there is no such thing and that if there was a four hour program wouldn't
even come close. Before history is deconstructed it's necessary to have a pretty detailed knowledge
of the topic, whatever it is. I wouldn't want an average high school student trying to deconstruct
the Reconstruction period. I agree with the Sergeant that books are the most effective way to
go with a subject like this.
18 minutes ago, Vautrin said:I think it's pretty clear for the most part. The question is what period of time will part two cover.
Part one ended in 1876/77, which is considered the end of Reconstruction. Maybe it will cover
the years immediately after Reconstruction or go up to the 1960s. Sometimes these programs
will wrap up everything up to the present day in the last twenty minutes or so. I'm still
waiting for the first hint of some fiddle music.
IMO, this first two hours could have been far more objective. While longer, Ken Burns did excellent presentations on the Civil War and the Vietnam War. Both of those events were far more complicated than Reconstruction. My issue with "Reconstruction" is that it views it almost entirely from the stand point of the freed slaves. Even the Northern Republicans are not covered very much in it and they created it and controlled it.
Two hours is sufficient time to present information from many facets. If 3 or 4 hours, that is even more time.
-
6 minutes ago, Sgt_Markoff said:
Questioning historicism is good; and has a lot of different directions you can pursue. But its also dangerous. because it can lead down the path that the post-structuralists took. Minds like Foucault, Derrida, Kristeval, deleuze, deMan, and Lacan. These are a bunch of boutique academics very attractive today because they represent the rein of subjectivity; the posture that 'there are no facts, there is no history', 'everything is just opinion'. This is a really heinous stance to take up. I despise the post-structuralists.
Have no idea who these people are, but I looked up post-structuralism on Wikipedia. The heading quoted below sums it up pretty well.
"This article may be too technical for most readers to understand." Wikipedia
To some extent, economics, politics, sociology, history and much more is based on "opinion." I remember the classic description of histories of wars. It is written by the victors. The information age and access to so much information is why truly objective studies and reporting have become so difficult.
-
1
-
-
I'll have to watch Nobody Lives Forever just to see how Eddie describes it as Noir vs. TCM Schedule showing it as "Romance." Haven't seen it and appears to have some good actors from the period in it and a decent plot. I looked up the IMDb summary of the story and list of actors.
-
11 hours ago, Vautrin said:
I believe the whole program is four hours long with the concluding two hours to come
next week. I found it informative to a degree, filling in some of the details of the overall
period. The main theme that I saw was that white southerners did everything in their
power to return to the antebellum days short of slavery, which had been outlawed. I
got a laugh out of the minor point of poorboy Andrew Johnson taking revenge on the
planter class that he despised by making them come to him individually to receive pardons.
It is a very confusing era. Almost as if there is the Civil War 1861-1865, the Second Civil War 1865-1876 and the Third Civil War 1876-1960's and beyond.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, TopBilled said:
These programs always seem too long. And they try to act like the definitive version of history, instead of being a springboard to thought-- letting others decide what history is for themselves.
I'd rather deconstruct and then reconstruct this whole "genre" of historical analysis.
Not sure what you meant by this, but sounds interesting.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Dargo said:
Then isn't it funny that Walter Brennan ALREADY looked like he had "lived forever" when he was still in his thirties???
(...well, I thought it was funny, anyway...in an "ironic" sort of way, of course)
My wife and I often comment that Brennan and some other actors were born old.
-
1
-
-
Apparently there is a third "hour" on Redemption. Not sure how Henry Louis Gates, Jr. interprets that phrase, but in the South it generally meant when the white Southerners redeemed their states from the Northern Republicans, carpetbaggers and blacks.
I found a lot lacking in the second hour as far as documentation as to how blacks were able to "purchase" the estates of the whites and so forth. Also, what did the blacks in Congress actually accomplish? Same for Southern state governments. What laws, bills, regulations did they create compared to merely voting for what the Radical (white) Republicans told them to. Were there any blacks in Congress from the North? Were there any blacks of significance in the Northern state governments?
Gates spoke with Rep. Jim Clyburn from S.C. Clyburn is in Congress because he has a district that has been gerrymandered to elect a black Democrat. Not sure he has ever really done that much for S.C. as a whole, although he does speak for blacks and is number three in Dem House leadership.
Gates mentioned the historically black colleges and universities which made a massive contribution to the education of blacks. However, with integration they have suffered tremendously and their role is ambiguous. S.C. State University (HBCU) was near bankruptcy a few years ago and the legislature even considered closing it down. Took massive state financing to get it back in shape and still has problems.
Gates sort of mentioned how the blacks controlled Southern state governments and specifically mentioned S.C. True, but the state was bankrupted by the legislatures. There is also the tremendous influence of the Radical Republicans and the carpetbaggers who got themselves elected or appointed to office. The Credit Mobilier scandal paled by comparison. One commentator tried to rationalize the corruption in Southern governments as an ordinary thing of the times. Not true as there was no such corruption in Northern or Western states and even in U.S. government.
A commentator (1:30) implied there was no corruption in Southern governments when it was actually massive and this is well documented.
Based on the ending of the program so far it appears that with Redemption, the 12 years of Reconstruction was an abject failure and set-up the rise of racism, suppression of blacks and Jim Crow era.
Not sure I will watch the rest. It appears that Gates had an agenda and wrote the script to reinforce it. He then secured services of commentators who would support his theory. It would have been a far better program if it had been more objective. After all, there was the white side of Reconstruction. Especially the poor whites, farmers and so forth. PBS can do better.
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, Hibi said:
The fact there may have been matte in the background, doesn't necessarily mean it was not a location shot. There may have been something in the background they wanted taken out of the shot. I don't recall now if the ship and the dock were in the same shot(s). It's possible the ship shots were on the backlot.
I have notice on many old movies where I think there is screen or false background behind the people actually is a real one. Something about the way the various portions of the scene are lit or how photography worked at the time or how converting it for TV affects it.
-
I watched the first 55 minutes or so and then it breaks for the next episode which I have not watched yet. I am not criticizing the purpose of the program, but I think it is less than objective. One of the usual advantages of PBS is that they have the programming time to present most if not all sides of an issue. Maybe it will be in part two, but Reconstruction affected the whites as much as it did the blacks.
My observations. Interesting that there are only two commentators from Southern universities - University of Richmond and University of Arkansas. Having majored in Southern history and read a lot of it since then, the state universities in the Southern states are where some of the most recognized historians teach. All of these universities have history departments with many eminent historians. Why are none of these people involved? They have a scene where Eric Foner visits the African-American museum in Beaufort, S.C., but they do not identify that he is or was a professor at Columbia University.
Andrew Johnson's reconstruction plan was pretty much the same as Abraham Lincoln. Had he lived, Lincoln would also have had a gentle reconstruction of the South. It should be noted that the Radical Republicans did not like Lincoln or his plans for the South. There would have been a major battle in the government had he lived.
I hadn't realized it (or forgotten) that the Southern states had zero representation in the U.S. government from Dec. 1865 until years later. They only had representation when the Radical Republicans were able to use the Federal army to install carpetbaggers, blacks and other allies in control of the Southern governments. These "governments" bankrupted most of the Southern states and local governments through various schemes. One was to solicit millions to construct railroads that were never even started. They used the credit of the governments to back the investments.
It was about 47 minutes into the program before someone acknowledged the oppession politically and economically of blacks in the North almost as much as in the South. To some extent it was easier for the Northern Congressmen and state governments to provide rights to blacks simply because they were relatively so few.
At about 50 minutes there was a brief allusion regarding the overwhelming "self-interests" of Northern Republicans [the Radicals] to take control of the United States. Penalizing the South and restricting their representation only to those approved by Radical Republicans enabled this. Incidentally, the term Radical Republicans is the one used by historians to refer to the Republicans who controlled the government during the war and after, not mine.
The commentary on the 1868 elections in the South and how successful the blacks were in getting Grant elected ignored the suppression of white voters. Also ignored that the allies of the Radical Republicans controlled voting in the South.
At about 55 minutes the comment was made that within a decade (1866-1876) the former slaves would "be full integrated into highest echelons of political society." Only because the Radical Republicans with the help of the U.S. Army placed them into those positions and mostly so they could manipulate them.
In 1876, the Republican Party cut a deal with the Democratic Party so the Southern states would cast their electoral votes for Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, even though the Democrat technically led in both the electoral and popular votes. The Southerners got the U.S. Army removed from the South and therefore the Radical Republicans, carpetbaggers and blacks were removed from political offices. The Southerners who were not fit for office in 1866 rose to power and returned to federal and state offices. At this point the era of Jim Crow and subordination of the blacks began again.
-
1
-
2
-
-
19 hours ago, Sgt_Markoff said:
Vautrin's remark rings true. 1865, 1866, and 1867 were huge crop failures in the South. Former slaves forced from economic necessity to return to their old masters for work often received less 'means' (in the form of the new wages system) to live on --ironically--than under the plantation system where they had guaranteed vegetable gardens. I was surprised to read that on a plantation, slave quarters were communal; meals were potluck and elderly slaves took communal care of infants while the adults and children worked the field. Once thrown onto the free labor market all of this became incredibly hard to manage in single family dwellings. Of course, the freedmen were still overjoyed to be able to set their own work hours, no corporal punishment, managing their own lives and households, travel, education, etc.
El Cid, if anything I'm mulling aloud here is poorly articulated on my part please say so. I'd be glad to be corrected. I've never lived down South so I may not be as attuned in as you are to this subject matter.
There is no doubt that the freed slaves were placed in a far worse economic position than even the poor whites. For all its horrors, the plantation system did provide for slaves because they were an investment and a necessity to keep the plantation going. Of course there were slaves in the towns and cities who worked in houses and businesses, but same principal of protecting your investment. Just as the tenant farmer system had little respect for the workers, there was little incentive to offer decent wages, housing, food or anything else to freed blacks.
Can't disagree with what you have said. Some of it I don't understand, but that is different issue. It is far more complicated than this program is even attempting to address. More on that later.
19 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:This weeks The Economist has a very interesting article called After Abolition, with the caption of "The sons of slaveholders quickly recovered their fathers' wealth".
Based on a study of historical census data by 3 economist;
E.g. Roughly 50% of the wealth in the antebellum South was held in slaves. After the surrender, all of this disappeared: wealth for the top 1% dropped by 76% between the 1860 and 1870 censuses. By the 1880 censuses the sons of slaveholders had recovered the wealth standing of their fathers compared with those that grew up in non-slaveholding households. By 1900 they had surpassed their fathers' wealth.
Haven't read the article, but not surprising. To a great extent the "sons" and even the fathers still had land wealth. Not all of it was stolen by the carpetbaggers. Entirely possible that the sons had the ability to invest in the development of the South that came after the destitution of losing a war. America was still a male dominated society then and they were far fewer white males in the South after the war.
All of these would seem to indicate that the fewer remaining white Southerners either had property wealth or had capitalized on economic reconstruction of the South. It takes far fewer people to be in the top 1% when the base is much smaller. Also, the non-slaveholding households were mostly the poor whites and small farmers who had nothing on which to build wealth.
Also, nationally this was a time of huge economic increases by a multitude of people. The robber barons were not alone in increasing their wealth by huge amounts. Steel, coal, railroads and many other facets created huge wealth during this period.
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, Vautrin said:
I enjoy some of those too, but they sure have a lot of interruptions just as one is starting
to get into the music. And some of the hosts go a bit overboard in talking about artists
they probably don't know all that well. And for a $75 pledge you will get the four CD collection
of rare outtakes and live performances. That's not all, for $100...
I have learned NOT to pick up the phone during or after my second glass of wine while watching these shows.
Actually, if interested it's better to go to your state's public TV/Radio station and see the list or rewards for each contribution level. In S.C., there are often dozens of different rewards that rarely appear on the specials.
-
1:30 to 7:15 AM Wednesday/Thursday night appears interesting. Four mystery/comedies. My favorite is Having A Wonderful Crime with Carole Landis. Also on tap: The Ex-Mrs. Bradford at 1:30; Mr & Mrs. North at 4:15 and Haunted Honeymoon at 5:30. Haven't seen the last two.
-
1 minute ago, Vautrin said:
Many a truth is spoken is jest, or maybe it's just a joke. I have seen promos for the series and
it looks interesting. It looks like it will provide detail to a historical subject that many people know
little about. Beats a pledge drive every time.
Hey I like the pledge drives when they showcase the old performers and music from the 50's and 60's.
-
-
2 hours ago, TopBilled said:
I was aware of that, and if you'll note, I didn't say the series had an Italian American producer or host. But it does have an Italian American director, which seems a bit odd to me. Not sure why Gates couldn't have brought an African American director on board.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to debate how a director might have no direct cultural ties to the material that is being presented. If Gordon Parks had directed THE GODFATHER, instead of Francis Coppola...or if Coppola had directed SHAFT instead of Parks...wouldn't that affect the way the story is told? I think so.
Why not have a white Southerner as director? Just saying. Why must it always be an African-American to direct or produce or write this type documentary?
11 minutes ago, Sgt_Markoff said:(TopBilled)
These are really murky waters to chart a course through. Its tempting to draw assumptions. All I can mention is that these issues are beginning to gain a lot of attention these days in the writing market, thanks the climate of general uproar over sensitivity. For example, Hollywood right now has a trend of insisting on 'authentic voices' (as well as 'new' voices) and diversity (or perhaps just tokenism) is clamored for. The very question you raise here is coming more to the surface than ever.
Regarding your last question I've reprinted here yes I would say that this particular time period between the Civil War and the 20th Century is widely under-studied and yet is one of the most crucial episodes. Begging be understood better.
The Southern Historical Association has published volumes upon volumes of studies of this era. Lest the name mislead you, the SHA is an educational organization that publishes thesis and dissertations of those studying Southern U.S. history. They also promote books by reputable, objective writers of the same area. Reconstruction is one area where they are involved.
The SHA formed in 1934 with a mandate to take an "investigative rather than a memorial approach" to southern history. We have been investigating ever since.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, Bogie56 said:
Wednesday, April 10
11:45 a.m. The Relaxed Wife (1957). “A short industrial film that seeks to help working men and their wives deal with life’s little problems.” Looks terribly up to date.
Interesting how often this one is on.
-
One of the OTA channels is showing the Lawman series and Peggy Castle is one of the "stars." When I started watching it I remembered the name, but no idea why. Should have looked it up, but her role in River Street sort of reminds me of what she was doing.
Hotties From Early TV
in General Discussions
Posted
She also had a featured role in Lawman. Interestingly she and the marshall and the deputy were always drinking coffee in the saloon Castle owned. She always wore standard covered from throat to feet dresses, except when she performed in her saloon and then showed a lot of skin and legs.
Jacqueline Beer was Miss France before she came to Hollywood. 77 Sunset Strip is on late nights on one of the OTA channels.
Merry Anders was on Dragnet 1967 which ran for more than just one year. Jack Webb made her wear a wig because he thought no one would believe a policewoman with blonde hair.
For some reason Barbara Nichols receives very high billing in the credits for Where the Boys Are, although her role was minor compared to others.
Lisa Gaye was very active. She was in a lot of TV shows and multiple episodes of some.
She also starred in Hart to Hart.