Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Keep this channel an entertainment channel, please!


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

There's a lot of debate about the exact purpose of making the abolition of slavery the goal of the war as

it progressed. Maybe that question will never be answered. If the south had suddenly called for a reversal

of secession if they were allowed to keep the system of slavery intact, would that have been allowed? Who

knows. I do agree that if the south had not seceded there would have been no war as Lincoln was not an

abolitionist when he was elected.  And if the south had not seceded slavery would have likely lasted more

than four years. They kind of ended slavery prematurely by their haste in leaving the union after Lincoln

was elected. 

There was a press campaign in the north to resurrect support for the war that rolled out along with the Emancipation Proclamation.  The circumstances surrounding that roll out appeared contrived to many.  Regardless, if this was a genuine change in mission you'd think the Proclamation would have applied to ALL slave states, not just the ones that left the union.  

Would slavery have died on its own?  You bet.  Why? Sharecropping.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

That kind of hints in a belief that doing your own thinking shouldn't be a consideration when forming an impression about any movie.   That YOU or anyone else wishes to react and consider anything about a certain movie is fine.  But, it doesn't mean I have to also.  And it also doesn't mean that I'm unaware of the truth about the past when I refuse to condemn a movie that's NOT an historic tutorial that displays an inaccurate representation of any certain historical period.   It then maybe might mean I should also condemn many science fiction and horror movies because they don't show the truth.   :wacko:

Sepiatone

I'm confused by your post.  I think we are in agreement, but not sure.

To me, the issue is that many want TCM to continue to show classic movies as they were presented to the public originally.  They do not want a panel to discuss the movie in the context of 2021 and the various cancel culture, woke and other movements to "reframe" history.  They (we) do not need someone to analyze and reframe a movie from their particular perspectives.

TCM should just have a disclaimer at the beginning of these movies.  Some topics may be culturally outdated and may be offensive to some people.  Ideas and concepts presented may be inaccurate.  Of course this could probably apply to any movie before 2000.

16 hours ago, Vautrin said:

True, Lincoln's goal at the beginning of the war was to preserve the union. It then evolved into a

war to both preserve the union and to abolish slavery.

The abolition of slavery was a goal of the abolitionists, but they were a minority in the Republican Party.  It was not a goal of the majority of Northerners or even soldiers.  The goal was to preserve the Union.

As noted before, the abolition of slavery was another tool Lincoln used, similar to the blockade of Southern ports and so forth.  The Emancipation Proclamation was a threat only to those states in rebellion at the time.  In fact, the areas of seceded states that were in Union control could continue to have slaves under the Proclamation.

Since it was an "executive order," it is likely that if the seceded states had agreed to end the war and return to the Union in 1864, Lincoln would have withdrawn it. 

12 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Nice to see someone that really gets it.      Funny,  but related to cancel-culture it is the folks that are upset at TCM and the host for the comments,   and have said they will no longer watch TCM,  that are practicing cancel-culture (by "canceling" TCM).     TCM isn't doing that since,  as you note,  TCM is showing the films uncut;  i.e. with so called offensive scenes 100% intact. 

TCM has received complaints from activist asking TCM to not show films these activist believe are offensive.     TCM had 3 choices;   completely ignore the activist,    stop showing the films or doing what they are doing now with this series.      I think TCM made the right choice and it is those that disagree (because they believe TCM should have made one of the other 2 choices),  that are the extremist.

 

There is a fourth choice as StarzEncore (Western) does.  They add a notation at beginning of movies, Outdated Cultural Depictions, along with ones for violence, etc.  TCM could have a brief statement reflecting that.  The "panels" and their opinions are the concern.

6 hours ago, Vidor said:

13th Amendment was not ratified until Dec. 1865, well after the war was over.  It also accomplished in part by having the legislatures in the 13 Confederate states vote for it.  Those legislatures were controlled by Northern Republicans, although the actual members were "elected" from the Southern states.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We are in agreement Cid.  Thing is, at other times when talking about this stuff with some of the people who ARE supposed to be offended, they tell me it's no big deal to them.  Like concerning GWTW and the movie not showing the true abuse and brutality of slavery.  As one put it, " Hell, I knew it was all just Hollywood BS.  Like Wallace Beery playing a Mexican or some Swedish guy playing Charlie Chan.  Nobody then ever expected reality anyway, elsewise they'd never go to the show."  ;) 

I'd be willing to suggest it's another case of seeing what you wish to.  And that a very small minority of people who ever saw the movie, black OR white, would consider it "problematic".  

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, ElCid said:

TCM should just have a disclaimer at the beginning of these movies.  Some topics may be culturally outdated and may be offensive to some people.  Ideas and concepts presented may be inaccurate.  Of course this could probably apply to any movie before 2000.

-snip-

There is a fourth choice as StarzEncore (Western) does.  They add a notation at beginning of movies, Outdated Cultural Depictions, along with ones for violence, etc.  TCM could have a brief statement reflecting that.  The "panels" and their opinions are the concern.

It's a safe bet those additional warnings will be added to opening graphics.  Too bad really, this was an opportunity to get past the same tired woke-isms. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Moe Howard said:

There was a press campaign in the north to resurrect support for the war that rolled out along with the Emancipation Proclamation.  The circumstances surrounding that roll out appeared contrived to many.  Regardless, if this was a genuine change in mission you'd think the Proclamation would have applied to ALL slave states, not just the ones that left the union.  

Would slavery have died on its own?  You bet.  Why? Sharecropping.  

 

The Emancipation Proclamation was a political move as well, so it's only natural that there was some kind

of pr campaign for it. I believe Lincoln was walking a very fraught tightrope and had to resort to half measures

to keep as many people in his corner as possible. He obviously didn't want to antagonize the slave holding

Border states by a declaration of total abolition.

The question is how long would slavery have lasted. Likely beyond 1865 if the south had not seceded. Doubtless

there are numerous guesses on the subject. I'm not expert, but I can see it going on until the 1870s or 1880s.

The planter class does not seem to be a group that was interested in radical changes to their way of life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ElCid said:

 

The abolition of slavery was a goal of the abolitionists, but they were a minority in the Republican Party.  It was not a goal of the majority of Northerners or even soldiers.  The goal was to preserve the Union.

As noted before, the abolition of slavery was another tool Lincoln used, similar to the blockade of Southern ports and so forth.  The Emancipation Proclamation was a threat only to those states in rebellion at the time.  In fact, the areas of seceded states that were in Union control could continue to have slaves under the Proclamation.

Since it was an "executive order," it is likely that if the seceded states had agreed to end the war and return to the Union in 1864, Lincoln would have withdrawn it. 

 

Yes, at the beginning the war was one to preserve the union, then it involved to include the abolition of

slavery. Yes, I'm sure that most Northerners and soldiers had little interest in fighting to end slavery. Of course

by the middle of the war there is the 'We didn't fight all this time and suffer all these losses just to quit

now' argument. I remember reading a number of years ago that there were some areas, though not

many, where slavery was ended when union forces occupied the area.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

The Emancipation Proclamation was a political move as well, so it's only natural that there was some kind

of pr campaign for it. I believe Lincoln was walking a very fraught tightrope and had to resort to half measures

to keep as many people in his corner as possible. He obviously didn't want to antagonize the slave holding

Border states by a declaration of total abolition.

The question is how long would slavery have lasted. Likely beyond 1865 if the south had not seceded. Doubtless

there are numerous guesses on the subject. I'm not expert, but I can see it going on until the 1870s or 1880s.

The planter class does not seem to be a group that was interested in radical changes to their way of life.

Agreed there'd be some slow to change their ways. But they'd be forced to adopt a similar business model or be swallowed up by the competition. The numbers are impossible to argue with. Owner One purchases and maintains a labor force as well as tools, seed and other required items. Owner Two just supplies the tools, seed and other required items.  

"He obviously didn't want to antagonize the slave holding Border states by a declaration of total abolition."

So I guess it evolved to include the partial abolition of slavery. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vautrin said:

The Emancipation Proclamation was a political move as well, so it's only natural that there was some kind

of pr campaign for it. I believe Lincoln was walking a very fraught tightrope and had to resort to half measures

to keep as many people in his corner as possible. He obviously didn't want to antagonize the slave holding

Border states by a declaration of total abolition.

The question is how long would slavery have lasted. Likely beyond 1865 if the south had not seceded. Doubtless

there are numerous guesses on the subject. I'm not expert, but I can see it going on until the 1870s or 1880s.

The planter class does not seem to be a group that was interested in radical changes to their way of life.

I referenced a book on what would have happened if the South had won on another thread.  Hypothesis was that it would be gone by 1880's or so.  Even before the war, it was becoming financially unsuccessful.  Far too many plantation owners were actually deep in debt before the war.   Partly because of the expense of maintaining slaves.  Much cheaper to hire blacks and whites and pay them a pittance and no worries about feeding them, health care or what to do when they got too old or infirm to work.

The Emancipation Proclamation was totally a political move by Lincoln.  At that point there was much support in England and France to provide financial and possibly military support to the Confederacy.   However, the English were opposed to slavery and therefore English government could not support the Confederacy after the Proclamation.  France probably did not care, but they were not going to do it if England didn't.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Moe Howard said:

Agreed there'd be some slow to change their ways. But they'd be forced to adopt a similar business model or be swallowed up by the competition. The numbers are impossible to argue with. Owner One purchases and maintains a labor force as well as tools, seed and other required items. Owner Two just supplies the tools, seed and other required items.  

"He obviously didn't want to antagonize the slave holding Border states by a declaration of total abolition."

So I guess it evolved to include the partial abolition of slavery. 

Probably some economic form of less than slavery would have come about. Labor at that time wouldn't have

had a lot of choices so staying with the old plantation in a more voluntary mode would have been a solution,

though a not very appealing one for the employee. The question is how soon would have that have happened

without secession and that we can only guess at.

Lincoln had to be very careful during most of the war to keep as many political forces satisfied as he could.

A partial abolition of slavery in the Emancipation Proclamation was likely the best he could do at the time.

Once the south was defeated full abolition was possible. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ElCid said:

I referenced a book on what would have happened if the South had won on another thread.  Hypothesis was that it would be gone by 1880's or so.  Even before the war, it was becoming financially unsuccessful.  Far too many plantation owners were actually deep in debt before the war.   Partly because of the expense of maintaining slaves.  Much cheaper to hire blacks and whites and pay them a pittance and no worries about feeding them, health care or what to do when they got too old or infirm to work.

The Emancipation Proclamation was totally a political move by Lincoln.  At that point there was much support in England and France to provide financial and possibly military support to the Confederacy.   However, the English were opposed to slavery and therefore English government could not support the Confederacy after the Proclamation.  France probably did not care, but they were not going to do it if England didn't.  

I've read there were a number of political reasons for the Emancipation Proclamation. including keeping

England and France out of the war. Lincoln had to thread a number of needles and I think that overall he

did a pretty good job of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me start out by saying I do not dislike Alicia Malone. She has poise and dignity, as well as intelligence. My gripe is that TCM Management has now clearly made her the water pail carrier for social-political opinions. She has recently begun spouting about "homophobia", "transgender phobia" and the like. Personally I have no such phobia's. But frankly, I'm sometimes beginning to feel like I'm watching CNN, MSNBC or FOX News when I listen to her. TCM is going a bit off the rails when it ventures into socio-ethical lecturing. I don't know Alicia's background, for they never talk about it. But for God's sake Alicia, please stick to film content and what goes into making a quality motion picture, especially during Hollywood's Golden Era. Please stay on the rails...and don't lecture us, okay? It isn't necessary. 

On the other hand, TCM struck gold when they brought Dr. Jacqueline Stewart on board. She clearly knows her stuff. In addition, she has tremendous screen presence and poise, in addition to a brilliant, educated mind. Bravo to TCM for making Dr. Stewart a part of the team!  A wonderful move.   

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2021 at 10:32 AM, Aritosthenes said:

Why Not Expend a Little More time being Respectful ?. ??

Or If Not Respectful. .. at the very least Professional ? (??

 

So What if i type differently?. 😐

- --

If Ya Have a Problem with it.. ... Simple. Dont Respond. 🙏

 

 

 

 

 

 

So Why Have a Profile of Someone smoking ?. .. She's Pretty And All. But Smoking Kills.

 

 

Misspelling a word does not,. 🙏

 

 

 

Unless Shes chewing Her nails.. ...which i think is unhealthy. 😐😬

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But (and Apologies for this parenthetical Here.. ...but i think this is JUST (again,. My Sincere Apologies for.. ... those .. ..."Awful" bold words ?.. i Suppose ?? 🤨😐🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

 

But this is maybe even MORE Important,.

 

I dont want to assume.

🙏 and i dont say that from a haughty standpoint either. 🙏🙏🙏

. ...

 

Besides +perhaps perpetuating readers inclination to drink when reading a great deal of my text(s) and correspondences. 

 

Perhaps Save for when referencing trump. .. who is (at the very least) a Jerk of Catastrophic Proportions..

..am i Rude.?

Have i threatened anyone around here ?.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why Not Keep It Civil ? 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honestly,. .. im Not Sure Your Profile There IS Smoking or Biting Her Nails. And Probably and Sincerely,. .. She (Your Profile There) is Probably Not,. ! 🙏

_

My Point Is.

 

 

What IS the Point of a Comment Like That ? ??, ? 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

If You Dont Like the Proverbial Trailer,  .. then Don't Watch it, or Change the Channel (?) ?? ..

Please do us all a BIG FAVOR...

Stop typing like this. It is very annoying and really you might think that you are being cute or different, but in reality it is very poor posting on your part.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fxreyman said:

Please do us all a BIG FAVOR...

Stop typing like this. It is very annoying and really you might think that you are being cute or different, but in reality it is very poor posting on your part.

It is also disrespectful to other members of the forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fxreyman said:

Please do us all a BIG FAVOR...

Stop typing like this. It is very annoying and really you might think that you are being cute or different, but in reality it is very poor posting on your part.

Im Not trying to be cute whatsoever Duke.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fxreyman said:

Please do us all a BIG FAVOR...

Stop typing like this. It is very annoying and really you might think that you are being cute or different, but in reality it is very poor posting on your part.

I dont at all type like this to reel in likes.

 

 

 

 

And, - im Sincerely Very Sorry When i say this. .. maybe - "reel" is NOT a "Good' Word ? ...

 

 

 

What word Should i use ?.

🙏

_

Seriously. 

 

 

 

Who (or As Archer Would Say Whom *rip Malory); Who am i being a jerk. Whom am i being rude to ?

 

 

Callme out if this is NOT the Case but Definitely Not You Duke.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I asked someone else this very thing ..

 

- and was met with silence .

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2021 at 4:54 PM, ElCid said:

I referenced a book on what would have happened if the South had won on another thread.  Hypothesis was that it would be gone by 1880's or so.  Even before the war, it was becoming financially unsuccessful.  Far too many plantation owners were actually deep in debt before the war.   Partly because of the expense of maintaining slaves.  Much cheaper to hire blacks and whites and pay them a pittance and no worries about feeding them, health care or what to do when they got too old or infirm to work.

The Emancipation Proclamation was totally a political move by Lincoln.  At that point there was much support in England and France to provide financial and possibly military support to the Confederacy.   However, the English were opposed to slavery and therefore English government could not support the Confederacy after the Proclamation.  France probably did not care, but they were not going to do it if England didn't.  

I wrote this yesterday in the 18 problematic thread about the South...

Quote

Only problem was that the South never had a chance to win the war. The only time it did have that chance was in 1862. Many Confederate victories in the eastern theater led by Generals Lee, Longstreet and Jackson. Pivotal victories over Union forces led by incompetent officers allowed the southern troops wide ranging victories. Had Lee not tried to attack at Gettysburg, the war may have lasted a year or two more at the least. After Gettysburg, the south never had a chance and then President Lincoln whose patience was running very thin with those generals leading Union forces chose U.S. Grant to lead all Union forces and by then the north was churning out more weapons and supplies. Meanwhile the south lost many of it's remaining factories and other sources of supplies including the dismantling of it's railways and the victories in the western theater like Vicksburg and Sherman's march to the sea through Georgia that split the south in two. These events were the ones that doomed the Confederacy.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, fxreyman said:

I wrote this yesterday in the 18 problematic thread about the South...

 

Actually the Confederacy was doomed from Day One of the war.  While there was a faint glimmer of hope up until Antietam, Sep. 17, 1862, it really never had a chance.  So long as the North retained the will to persist - and they did.  The Union probably could have put several hundred thousand more troops in the field at any time they wished.  And fully equipped, armed and fed them, while still feeding the civilians at home and keeping factories, railroads and shipping humming.  The Confederacy had none left.  Even freeing  the slaves and enlisting them would not have helped.

More importantly, they had no factories, no large food production sources or most other things needed for war.

While Antietam was a stalemate, Lincoln declared it a victory and issued the Emancipation Proclamation.  It was definitely downhill from there.   As your citation notes the Confederacy was already losing the war in the West with Grant an d Sherman and others.  Vicksburg was  a major defeat, but actually the Union already controlled the entire Mississippi except for Vicksburg.

The Confederacy was doomed before Gettysburg, but it was the last shot at doing something to turn the political tide in the North.  Personally I don't think that ever would have happened, as McClellan's dismal performance in the presidential race of 1864 showed.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Aritosthenes said:

I dont at all type like this to reel in likes.

 

 

 

 

And, - im Sincerely Very Sorry When i say this. .. maybe - "reel" is NOT a "Good' Word ? ...

 

 

 

What word Should i use ?.

🙏

_

Seriously. 

 

 

 

Who (or As Archer Would Say Whom *rip Malory); Who am i being a jerk. Whom am i being rude to ?

 

 

Callme out if this is NOT the Case but Definitely Not You Duke.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I asked someone else this very thing ..

 

- and was met with silence .

Secure Passwords In a Spring Boot Project Using Jasypt | by Prasad Sonawane  | Medium

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

TMC Rebuttal

We have been fans of TCM for years and thoroughly enjoy the variety of movies and the comments of the hosts regarding the history of the movie.  Unfortunately, we were watching “The Searchers” and out of the blue the hosts began a diatribe on the character of John Wayne being a Racist. Really, I would think if you look for a problem you will find it. What right does TCM have to dictate to its viewers what is Racial? It’s the hosts responsibility to stick to the job of explaining the history and any other relative facts regarding the movie. 

If it continues, we are done with TCM.  We were organizing a TCM Cruise with several other couples when Covid-19 subsides, however we are all rethinking booking the Cruise. Enough is Enough- we as older adults which are your main viewers know the difference of Racism.  FYI my wife is part Cherokee and the notion of the racist character of John Wayne never entered her mind.  Let me be clear you can find positive or negative in a movie or for that matter anything in life, it’s up to the individual’s perception.  TCM don’t succumb to the misfits who call themselves the Cancel Culture- they are the new Bullies! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...