Well, Roots was a load of old bòllocks imo

[Burney]

Amidst all the cartoon nonsense, though, one blatant historical falsehood had me bellowing at the screen. At one point Chicken George got sold off to an English lord, who then took him back to England to fight his cocks for him. After 20-odd years, this lord then gives George his freedom and he goes back to America to see his family.
Now, the problem with that is that slavery had long been outlawed in England by the time this was set, so as soon as George had set foot on British soil - or even on the deck of a British ship - he would have been a free man and thus him working against his will for this lord would have been utterly out of the question.

Load of old bòllocks. :furious:

[Monty92]

Amidst all the cartoon nonsense, though, one blatant historical falsehood had me bellowing at the screen. At one point Chicken George got sold off to an English lord, who then took him back to England to fight his cocks for him. After 20-odd years, this lord then gives George his freedom and he goes back to America to see his family.
Now, the problem with that is that slavery had long been outlawed in England by the time this was set, so as soon as George had set foot on British soil - or even on the deck of a British ship - he would have been a free man and thus him working against his will for this lord would have been utterly out of the question.

Load of old bòllocks. :furious:

On another note, what was your interpretation of the end of Taboo? Was he double crossing the Americans?

[Burney]

On another note, what was your interpretation of the end of Taboo? Was he double crossing the Americans?

I really have no idea. I stopped trying to follow what was going on. It was all simply too silly for words. My abiding memories of the series will be of his guttural grunting, some appallingly bad make-up, sister-fúcking and Jonathan Pryce saying 'fûck'.

I look forward to a second series.

[redgunamo]

Amidst all the cartoon nonsense, though, one blatant historical falsehood had me bellowing at the screen. At one point Chicken George got sold off to an English lord, who then took him back to England to fight his cocks for him. After 20-odd years, this lord then gives George his freedom and he goes back to America to see his family.
Now, the problem with that is that slavery had long been outlawed in England by the time this was set, so as soon as George had set foot on British soil - or even on the deck of a British ship - he would have been a free man and thus him working against his will for this lord would have been utterly out of the question.

Load of old bòllocks. :furious:

Maybe so, but did you know that Thomas Carter, the series' director, also made the pilot episode of Miami Vice? He is responsible for the whole Driving-a-fake-Ferrari-at-night-to-the-sound-of-Phil-Collins'-InTheAirTonight thing.

[Pat Vegas]

Amidst all the cartoon nonsense, though, one blatant historical falsehood had me bellowing at the screen. At one point Chicken George got sold off to an English lord, who then took him back to England to fight his cocks for him. After 20-odd years, this lord then gives George his freedom and he goes back to America to see his family.
Now, the problem with that is that slavery had long been outlawed in England by the time this was set, so as soon as George had set foot on British soil - or even on the deck of a British ship - he would have been a free man and thus him working against his will for this lord would have been utterly out of the question.

Load of old bòllocks. :furious:

I thought this thread was going to be about Cricket from the title.

[Ash]

I thought this thread was going to be about Cricket from the title.

:nod: I saw it and thought "didn't know a test match started today".

[redgunamo]

I thought this thread was going to be about Cricket from the title.

:hehe: Well played, P. I think I'm going to start calling him that from now on; Joe Roots.

[Peter]

Amidst all the cartoon nonsense, though, one blatant historical falsehood had me bellowing at the screen. At one point Chicken George got sold off to an English lord, who then took him back to England to fight his cocks for him. After 20-odd years, this lord then gives George his freedom and he goes back to America to see his family.
Now, the problem with that is that slavery had long been outlawed in England by the time this was set, so as soon as George had set foot on British soil - or even on the deck of a British ship - he would have been a free man and thus him working against his will for this lord would have been utterly out of the question.

Load of old bòllocks. :furious:

You are barking up the wrong tree, b. He went to Britain as part of a deal that would have set his whole family free once the debt was cleared. Both he and his owner were at the behest of the british bloke that owned the debt. Although you are technically right that he could have walked off and surely would have done after about 5 years.

The more interesting point is that cock fighting was banned in Britain in 1835. But I guess posh blokes were exempt. Which kind of relates to the point above as well.

[Burney]

You are barking up the wrong tree, b. He went to Britain as part of a deal that would have set his whole family free once the debt was cleared. Both he and his owner were at the behest of the british bloke that owned the debt. Although you are technically right that he could have walked off and surely would have done after about 5 years.

The more interesting point is that cock fighting was banned in Britain in 1835. But I guess posh blokes were exempt. Which kind of relates to the point above as well.

But he was specifically referred to in the programme as being manumitted by the Englishman - something he couldn't have done because you can't manumit someone who's not a slave.

They clearly did it just to facilitate the story, but what irritates me is that the story of the Atlantic slave trade is surely egregious enough without having to introduce historical inaccuracies for convenience's sake?

[Peter]

But he was specifically referred to in the programme as being manumitted by the Englishman - something he couldn't have done because you can't manumit someone who's not a slave.

They clearly did it just to facilitate the story, but what irritates me is that the story of the Atlantic slave trade is surely egregious enough without having to introduce historical inaccuracies for convenience's sake?

Be honest, b. Aside from the slavery issue, you wish the Confederacy had won, don't you :D

[Burney]

Be honest, b. Aside from the slavery issue, you wish the Confederacy had won, don't you :D

I certainly think their argument was more in line with the founding principles of the United States than that of the Union side, yes.

[Peter]

I certainly think their argument was more in line with the founding principles of the United States than that of the Union side, yes.

That all men are created equal? :D

Equal but separate, that is...their argument (apart from wanting to own black people) revolves around states' rights and given that they managed to effectively ignore the 14th amendment for a further century by arguing that states got to decide what civil rights it enforced I would say it was an argument well won.

From a constitutional perspective, that century was more outrageous than the one that preceded it

[Burney]

That all men are created equal? :D

Equal but separate, that is...their argument (apart from wanting to own black people) revolves around states' rights and given that they managed to effectively ignore the 14th amendment for a further century by arguing that states got to decide what civil rights it enforced I would say it was an argument well won.

From a constitutional perspective, that century was more outrageous than the one that preceded it

Sure, but we did agree slavery aside?

I simply mean that the founding fathers were clearly always trying to guard against an over-mighty executive at the heart of an over-mighty federal state. And that was exactly what Union victory in the civil war delivered. :shrug:

[Peter]

Sure, but we did agree slavery aside?

I simply mean that the founding fathers were clearly always trying to guard against an over-mighty executive at the heart of an over-mighty federal state. And that was exactly what Union victory in the civil war delivered. :shrug:

Did it? How so?

The only sticking points seem to be that a state couldn't leave the Union and slavery could not exist. In all other crucial respects states were left to decide how to enforce federal laws, thus a freedman could be considered a citizen by the federal government yet be denied all the rights of a citizen by his state. For a hundred years......

[Burney]

Did it? How so?

The only sticking points seem to be that a state couldn't leave the Union and slavery could not exist. In all other crucial respects states were left to decide how to enforce federal laws, thus a freedman could be considered a citizen by the federal government yet be denied all the rights of a citizen by his state. For a hundred years......

Well dictating the abolition of slavery by the federal government to the states was unconstitutional. They had no right to do it and it set a precedent. The rebellion was justified (technically if not morally).
The ways in which this proved the thin end of the wedge seem clear. It starts with Lincoln unconstitutionally suspending habeas corpus and the introduction of conscription to a
federal army and goes from there.
The whole Civil War was about the assertion of the primacy of the federal over the individual states' rights. It inevitably drew power and authority from the states and to the centre - a process that has become more pronounced over time.

[Peter]

Well dictating the abolition of slavery by the federal government to the states was unconstitutional. They had no right to do it and it set a precedent. The rebellion was justified (technically if not morally).
The ways in which this proved the thin end of the wedge seem clear. It starts with Lincoln unconstitutionally suspending habeas corpus and the introduction of conscription to a
federal army and goes from there.
The whole Civil War was about the assertion of the primacy of the federal over the individual states' rights. It inevitably drew power and authority from the states and to the centre - a process that has become more pronounced over time.

Which is precisely why it required (and gained) an amendment to the Constitution. Nor was it dictated, nor even begun until after the South began hostilities.

I think the South are keen to see it as a principled stand over states' rights. I think it has a lot more to do with the extent to which the two parts of the country had grown apart over a century...economically and politically. International trade was a huge economic issue for both and each wanted different things.

I kind of agree with you though. The founding fathers' principle of government was that it derives from the consent of the governed. It is quite hard to explain how a nation founded on the right to abolish a government it no longer accepts can then form a union from which no state can secede.