Vautrin
-
Posts
21,175 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by Vautrin
-
-
Jan Sterling. In the later part of her career she appeared mostly on the
small screen.
-
1
-
-
Dumb old me. I thought the 25 people who put the most dead
presidents into the Mankman's hand got to introduce their favorite
flicks.
-
Susan Strasberg. Likely better known as
a movie star, but she did a fair amount
of TV too.
-
1
-
-
For the slightly less intellectualy inclined--Linda Thorson.
The lovely Elizabeth MacRae.
You've got to go to Pixley to get these duds. They sure don't sell
'em in Hooterville.
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, TheCid said:
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?
A significant part of Reconstruction, though not everything about it, was, while
admitting the former Confederate states back into the Union, an effort to help the newly
free slaves in adjusting to life after slavery and giving them political rights and trying to
limit the continued oppression of black people. No doubt it didn't work perfectly in
practice, but some good was accomplished. Who knows if things would have worked out
for the better or the worse if it was not ended in 1876. I think the reason it was
abandoned in 1876 was the political moves around the disputed presidential election.
As so often happens, politics and winning an election were more important than what
happened to people, in this case the former slaves. We'll find out tonight what the
series covers in its last two hours.
-
I sometimes watch TMTMS on FETV where it plays every weekday from 1 to 2 o'clock.
While it's sad to hear of her death, the Georgette character was often one of those
where a little of her goes a long way. I guess Engel kept it from going over the edge
of yucky sweetness. She was also good as Robert's mother-in-law in ELR. She
was surprised by her son's satanic metal crossword puzzle with 1,000 pieces of head
banging fun.
-
I couldn't recall if I had seen this one before or not. It looked familiar but I wasn't sure until
the Walter Brennan character showed up. How can one forget a guy who charges a dime to
look through his telescope (while he tries to pick your pocket). To me it's more of a grifter
film than a noir. I got a kick out of the golf mad adviser to Fitzgerald, but those crummy
suits that Coulouris wears. Yikes. Whatever one wants to call it, pretty engaging though
not top drawer. Never eat at a place called Mom's, engage in a bs showdown with a guy
named Pop, or go into a con with a man called Doc.
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, TheCid said:
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.
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.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, TheCid said:
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.
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.
-
Buy a rowboat, go out onto the water late at night and punch a hole in the
bottom. Voila.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:
Yeah, you do raise a good point. They don't believe there is no objective reality and anything can be true but rather no objective "truth" as in moral view of the world. Zizek explains the antisemite's postmodern view of the world in this article.
https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/three-variations-on-trump-chaos-europe-and-fake-news/
Problems begin with the last distinction. In some sense, there ARE “alternate facts,” though, of course, not in the sense of the debate whether the Holocaust did or did not happen. (Incidentally, all the Holocaust-revisionists whom I know, from David Irving on, argue in a strictly empirical way of verifying data; none of them evokes postmodern relativism!) “Data” are a vast and impenetrable domain, and we always approach them from what hermeneutics calls a certain horizon of understanding, privileging some data and omitting others. All our histories are precisely that – stories, a combination of (selected) data into consistent narratives, not photographic reproductions of reality. For example, an anti-Semitic historian could easily write an overview of the role of the Jews in the social life of Germany in the 1920s, pointing out how entire professions (lawyers, journalists, art) were numerically dominated by Jews – an account that is (probably more or less) true, but clearly in the service of a lie.
The most efficient lies are lies performed with truth, lies which reproduce only factual data. Take the history of a country: one can tell it from the political standpoint (focusing on the vagaries of political power), on economic development, on ideological struggles, on popular misery and protest… Each of the approaches could be factually accurate, but they are not “true” in the same emphatic sense. There is nothing “relativist” in the fact that human history is always told from a certain standpoint, sustained by certain ideological interests. The difficult thing is to show how some of these interested standpoints are not ultimately all equally true: some are more “truthful” than others. For example, if one tells the story of Nazi Germany from the standpoint of the suffering of those oppressed by it, i.e., if we are led in our telling by an interest in universal human emancipation, this is not just a matter of a different subjective standpoint. Such a retelling of history is also immanently “more true” since it describes more adequately the dynamics of the social totality which gave birth to Nazism. Not all “subjective interests” are the same, not only because some are ethically preferable to others but because “subjective interests” do not stand outside a social totality; they are themselves moments of that social totality, formed by active (or passive) participants in social processes. The title of Habermas’s early masterpiece “Knowledge and Human Interest” is perhaps more actual today than ever before.
Also Nietzsche and Heidegger are generally viewed as the forerunners to Post-structuralism.
I think most people would agree that history is a selection of data and trying to use that data
to build a certain narrative as objectively as possible. While the anti-Semitic historian might
write that Jews dominated certain professions, and assuming for a minute that is borne out
by the numbers, just because his purpose is to enhance his anti-Semitic views doesn't
make that fact, if it is a fact, any less true.
I'm not sure that one factual narrative is more or less true than another. The history of Nazism
from the standpoint of its victims is not more true than the economic, political, and social
factors that led to the rise and ultimate coming to power of the Nazi party. They are merely
different perspectives on the subject of Nazism. I place moral and ethical "truths" on a different
level than those of science and math. It's difficult to see how the former can ever be objective.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, TheCid said:
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.
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.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, Dargo said:
"PREverts"?!
(...somewhere Archie Bunker and Col. 'Bat' Guano are now nodding their heads in agreement with the above comment)
If one spells it correctly, it will be asterisked out. Oops, I've got to go to the terlet.
-
There are a number of times I've read philosophy professors on the net replying to folks who
talk about the idea that post-structuralists believe everything is an opinion, there are no facts,
that there is no such thing as objective reality, the profs usually say that this is a gross
exaggeration and an erroneous popularization of their views. I think the profs might have
something there. Nietzsche the father of post-structuralism. That's not a fact, just an
interpretation.
-
7 hours ago, TheCid said:
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.
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.
-
9 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.
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.
-
1
-
-
It's just so obvious that Hollywood left-wing preverts are destroying this great country
reel by reel, film by film. They are sociopaths wrapped in a nama inside Fidel's old
cigars.
-
3
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, cigarjoe said:
Common sense says that if you go to Hoboken, NJ on a street called River Street you would try to get the Hudson River and the Manhattan skyline in the background of the action or why the hell go, no?
Most of the studio set NYC noirs have establishing shots but then go right to the backlots. A native New Yorker can tell the diff. As soon as they started more and more on location shooting (Naked City, Crime Wave for Los Angeles etc., etc.) going back to the backlot sets looked more and more fake-ish. Pickup on South Street did a great job of recreating the city without ever being there, but take a look at 60s noir The Money Trap (1965) where they do live location shooting but use a studio NYC set for a downtown LA location and it's obvious that it isn't, it's a visually jarring experience.
I always say where the f are the cars/traffic. Case in point a picture of "The Street" Noir mode below.
And if you go to Petersburg, Va. you'll bump right into the Appomattox river. So I'm
not surprised that some of the river scenes could have been filmed there. Petersburg,
Va. was also the hometown of Joseph Cotten. Not too hard to notice his soft southern
accent.
-
6 hours ago, TheCid said:
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.
Some of the performers I'm not interested enough to buy CDs and I've already got more of
them than I can listen to. Since I don't pledge maybe I'll leave a little chunk of change in
my will. No pledge drives in hell. I hope.
-
I think it's very obvious that Depardieu is jealous of Ogier's work and the time spent with
her clients. He wants to have control over what she is doing and she isn't going along with
that. That can't be making him very happy.
-
I don't what it was like in the early 1950s, but Petersburg, VA did have its rundown areas
in the early 2000s.
-
-
4 hours ago, TopBilled said:
Right...well, we have to ask what they are comparing them to...yeah? British soaps seem superior to me over U.S. soaps. But I go on Digital Spy and the Brits are complaining constantly about their soaps. I think if they watched U.S. soaps for awhile, they might appreciate just how good those shows are by comparison.
Many of them are just comparisons to anything that came out after 1970 or so. If it's in
b&w and from seventy years ago, it's got to be great. I don't watch soaps, but I know
that the afternoon American lineup ain't what it used to be, at least in quantity.
-
2
-
Hotties From Early TV
in General Discussions
Posted
If I remember it correctly she also played Adam's fiancee on Bonanza. Then his cousin,
played by Guy Williams, came along and she fell for him and Adam was out of luck. One
more Cartwright wedding to be that never came off.