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

Pray This Does Not Happen On Tuesday 5 November 2013!!!


Recommended Posts

The authors of this book are highly trained historians and economists

with no set agenda.

 

Of course their findings are not politically correct and that's a big

problem in today's world.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Cross-Economics-American-Slavery/dp/0393312186

 

Since we're talking about a 39 year old book, here are the remarks of a few other historians:

 

*In 1975, the historian Herbert Gutman criticized the authors' reliance on evidence from a single, unrepresentative plantation. He also noted the authors were extremely careless in their maths, and often used the wrong measurement to estimate the harshness of slavery (for example, estimating the number of slaves whipped rather than how often each slave was whipped). In Slavery and the Numbers Game (1975), Gutman argued that Fogel and Engerman also routinely ignored better, readily available data. He criticized Fogel and Engerman on a host of other issues as well, including the lack of evidence for systematic and regular rewards, and a failure to consider the effect public whipping would have on other slaves. He argued that Fogel and Engerman had mistakenly assumed that slaves had assimilated the Protestant work ethic. If they had such an ethic, then the system of punishments and rewards outlined in Time on the Cross would support Fogel and Engerman's thesis. Gutman conclusively showed that most slaves had not adopted this ethic at all, and that slavery's carrot-and-stick approach to work was not part of the slave worldview.*

 

*Gutman and others' critiques were so thorough that in 1975 Thomas Haskell wrote that Time on the Cross appeared to be "severely flawed and possibly not even worth further attention by serious scholars.".[1]*

 

*In American Slavery, the historian Peter Kolchin suggests that the economists did not fully consider the costs of the forced migration of more than one million slaves from the Upper South to the Deep South, where they were sold to cotton plantations.[4] He wrote that the book was a "flash in the pan, a bold but now discredited work."[5]*

 

*[1] Haskell, Thomas L. "The True and Tragical History of 'Time on the Cross'", New York Review of Books, 22:15 (October 2, 1975), accessed 8 January 2012*

 

*[4] Peter Kolchin, American Slavery, 1619-1865, New York: 1992, p. 97*

 

*[5] Kolchin (1992), p. 492*

Link to post
Share on other sites

>I am so glad that you posters are so eager to discuss GWTW. Let me ask a question about the scene where Rhett warns the guests at Twelve Oaks about the superiority in numbers and supplies that the Northern states enjoy: were the Southerners really that reckless?

 

How often since those days have we heard the refrain that "our troops would be home by Christmas"?

 

Too many.

Link to post
Share on other sites

*With all due respect, criticize the position, but not the poster. I'd prefer not to interfere in your discussion, but that will happen if the topic becomes an exchange of personal disdain for one another.*

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I wouldn't go that far. I do see where a PC filter can cover up or mask facts. I.e. leads to actual events and facts not being said because they cause discomfort to a certain group.

 

But if that is the case, than GWTW is a good example of a PC movie. GWTW provides a PC view of US history to ensure a certain group of people are not offended by the actual events that occurred.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>You and JakeHolman argued the slave owner's self interest would lead them to care well for their property. The reductio ad absurdum argument to belie that patent falsehood would be that slavery would be a desirable lifestyle.

 

First off, it's not really a "patent falsehood". I believe there WERE slave owners who cared well for their slaves. But considered them slaves nonetheless, and as so, their "property".

 

We've already covered the fact that one can read into or see something that wasn't intended to begin with. Check out the "High Plains Drifter" thread to see such possibilities. Claiming that our forwarding the notion that some slave owners took good care of their slaves can possibly mean we accept the concept that slavery was a desirable lifestyle is tantamount to claiming my negative attitude towards capital punishment means I think murderers should go free. It means nothing of the sort.

 

Even today, there are those who abuse rigorously their own children, so that there were many who back then abused their slaves is a given. Lest we forget, there WERE many slaves who passed on freedom when it was offered, and kept loyal to their "Massa's". There HAD to be a reason why. Maybe we are making broad assumptions, but I think not so much.

 

In contemporary comparison, it could be said that many Communist countries provided their citizens well. Housing, clothing, food and basic services were all forthcoming. But it STILL wasn't the utopia that their leaders pretended it to be, which caused many to try to defect, and many more wishing to do so. And like slavery, if one stirred the manure, they suffered greatly, or gravely.

 

If one has to rule with tyranny in order to keep the peace, that peace can't possibly be worth the price.

 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

>GWTW provides a PC view of US history to ensure a certain group of people are not offended by the actual events that occurred.

 

I am watching SUNDAY IN NEW YORK (1963). I'm trying to find some black people in the street scenes in New York, also at the airport, and in Central Park. I don't see any, except maybe one in a skycap's uniform in the distance at the airport, but he was so far away from the camera, I couldn't tell for sure.

 

Were there no black people on the streets of New York, or at the airport, or in Central Park in 1963?

 

When I went there in 1965 I saw thousans of them all over the place, just like everyone else.

 

This amuses me every time I see a 1940s to mid-60s Hollywood film of street scenes, offices, parks, airports, stores, and public buildings in New York, especially with famous all-white casts. It is as if black people didn't exist back in those days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me there is a difference between not showing people in films when they should be part of the background, and a plot that is based on events related to how they lived and were treated done in an unrealistic way.

 

Neither is right, but one is a lot worst than the other in my opinion.

 

But if you're point was that movies with setting in non southern locations excluded black people for marketing reasons (i.e. whites didn't wish to see blacks in movies), you're get no push back from me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretending they don't exist is awful. The studios went to a lot of trouble to clear them off the street and out of the background of these New York-based movies, but I guess that's what New York and Northern audiences wanted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am watching SUNDAY IN NEW YORK (1963). I'm trying to find some black people in the street scenes in New York, also at the airport, and in Central Park. I don't see any, except maybe one in a skycap's uniform in the distance at the airport, but he was so far away from the camera, I couldn't tell for sure.

 

Were there no black people on the streets of New York, or at the airport, or in Central Park in 1963?

 

When I went there in 1965 I saw thousans of them all over the place, just like everyone else.

 

This amuses me every time I see a 1940s to mid-60s Hollywood film of street scenes, offices, parks, airports, stores, and public buildings in New York, especially with famous all-white casts. It is as if black people didn't exist back in those days.

 

Pretending they don't exist is awful. The studios went to a lot of trouble to clear them off the street and out of the background of these New York-based movies, but I guess that's what New York and Northern audiences wanted.

 

That's a very interesting comment, Fred. I've heard it before from others, and it doesn't surprise me. It's a variant in a way of some of the pre-code Warner Brothers' movies that seemed to make a point of including *one* or *two* black characters as part of a group- - - one or two but never any more. The box car kids in Wild Boys of the Road, for instance, or Duke Mantee's gang in The Petrified Forest. And of course in The Little Rascals.

 

But do you have any specific sources you might cite? I'd like to delve into the subject and would appreciate any leads you might have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>But do you have any specific sources you might cite? I'd like to delve into the subject and would appreciate any leads you might have.

 

I haven't read anything about it. It is just something I've noticed, such as there always being black people in films that take place in the South, but almost never any in films that take place in New York or other Northern cities or small towns, even though they lived there and in some cities represented as much as 20% or more of the local population and more in some cities.

 

Then I began to notice that it actually took some doing, some careful planning and coordinating to cut them out and keep them out of the street scenes, since, every time I've been to New York, Chicago, or other Northern city, they are fully represented on the street, and fully integrated into the street scenes, based on their local percentage of the population. But they don't show up like that in Hollywood movies. And I think most people never really notice it.

 

Try to find one in ON THE TOWN (1949) or any other 1950s or early 60s movies that have a lot of Manhattan street scenes. Try MARTY, or any of the all-white "romance in Manhattan" movies (Doris Day type films, etc). Try NORTH BY NORTHWEST. I found one in the background of one of the scenes inside the UN building, and maybe 2 as red-cap porters in the Chicago train station, but that is all.

 

The same goes for small midwestern towns too, yet if you go to local state websites about African American history in each state, they often list major histories of all the black people who lived in those states in the 1940s-50s, yet they never turn up in movies like PICNIC, or THE MUSIC MAN, or STATE FAIR, or other Midwestern movies.

 

There are a few in the Doris Day film STORM WARNING, in a couple of the courthouse crowd scenes, but that film takes place in the South.

 

I don't think any of the white actors had anything to do with this, or the directors. I think it was a top-level studio decision. And, apparently, a secret one that is yet to be written about by the national media. Generally, the media doesn't like to expose things like this about old Hollywood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting once more, Fred, and your explanation makes sense. Kind of like the strange abundance of parking spaces on New York City streets right in front of everyone's building, back in nearly every movie up through the 60's. I always thought it'd be kind of neat for them to make a film where James Cagney or Robert Redford spends 20 minutes circling the block trying to find a parking space.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>FDobbs:

>I guess that's what New York and Northern audiences wanted

 

Sunday in New York was only shown in New England?

 

> I think it was a top-level studio decision. And, apparently, a secret one that is yet to be written about by the national media. Generally, the media doesn't like to expose things like this about old Hollywood.

 

Really!?!? The media (whatever that is) protecting the evil conspiratorial Hollywood leaders? Not digging for every least little salacious titillating tidbit of scandal to expose and blazon to the world? Mmm. They must be slipping.

Link to post
Share on other sites

*it'd be kind of neat for them to make a film where James Cagney or Robert Redford spends 20 minutes circling the block trying to find a parking space.*

 

Gripping stuff for sure.

 

Well, for an occasional stroll down Reality Road it'd sure beat those six-shooter duels where they don't run out of bullets for about 30 shots each. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uncle Tom Jefferson added his own medical advice about slaves

and did so in a rather unintentionally humorous way--Do not bleed

the negro, meaning that bloodletting is not a good thing for

slaves. Another reason to give thanks to the Sage of Monticello.

 

Time on the Cross has had its own time on the cross, as

shown by the following review, for those who have some spare time

on their hands And one might wonder how beneficial slavery was to

the slaves with a title like that.

 

 

http://digitalhistory.concordia.ca/courses/hist403w08/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/timeonthecross.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny you should mention My Dinner With Andre. That movie caused me to establish my personal all-time record for quickest time for leaning to the exits, but I wound up sticking around and watching the whole enchilada for the same reason that some people like to watch train wrecks.

 

Not that I don't like dialogue-centered movies. One of my favorite directors is Eric Rohmer. And to take it back to the thought of circling the block for 20 minutes looking for a parking space, there's a scene in Four Adventures of Reinette and Mirabelle where the two girls seem to spend about 20 minutes haggling with a waiter over whether they can pay for their coffee with a large denomination bill. The scene actually works quite beautifully, though of course it helps that neither of the actresses has much resemblance to Wallace Shawn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we can all agree that in many cases, from the treatment of slaves in movies, to the absence of blacks and the ease of finding parking in Manhattan, movies usually have a huge disconnect from reality.

 

Stop the presses!

 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

> I guess we can all agree that in many cases, from the treatment of slaves in movies, to the absence of blacks and the ease of finding parking in Manhattan, movies usually have a huge disconnect from reality

 

Most of the "golden age" ones sure as heck do.

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
© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...