|
Post by freecharlie on Jul 28, 2016 2:24:45 GMT
maybe I'm not so highbrow as most, but that line doesn't sound ALL that bad, to me. I haven't read any of his books so perhaps a book full of phrases like that might get kind of tiresome... but if it keeps my interest to read about history, that's not necessarily a bad thing. What does being highbrown entail? I'm not sure if I am or not. The books are not scholarly in nature, but their facts are correct.
|
|
|
Post by 950nancy on Jul 28, 2016 2:33:16 GMT
I did not hear Bill say this in context, but I have heard him speak many times. He is arrogant and likes to prove how smart he is and puts down anyone who does not easily agree with him. I find him an interesting personality. When I heard these words, my first thought was he was minimizing the severity of slavery fact or not. In my head, it was the same as saying that Jaycee Dugard was clothed and well fed. Under the conditions, to me, a person lost their freedom and nothing can minimize it.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 1:18:35 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2016 2:33:31 GMT
. Apparently it entails being so scandalized by a line like "The man with a furrowed brow had weeks to live" that you remember it and quote it later to an audience who, I suspect, is largely baffled by what's wrong with it.
|
|
mimima
Drama Llama
Stay Gold, Ponyboy
Posts: 5,017
Jun 25, 2014 19:25:50 GMT
|
Post by mimima on Jul 28, 2016 2:42:49 GMT
maybe I'm not so highbrow as most, but that line doesn't sound ALL that bad, to me. I haven't read any of his books so perhaps a book full of phrases like that might get kind of tiresome... but if it keeps my interest to read about history, that's not necessarily a bad thing. What does being highbrown entail? I'm not sure if I am or not. The books are not scholarly in nature, but their facts are correct. It seems that there had to be some corrections to subsequent editions
|
|
|
Post by DinCA on Jul 28, 2016 2:58:29 GMT
It was totally inappropriate and offensive. Yes, they were paid and, yes, they were probably fed but many of them were still slaves. Some were also freed slaves. He could have clarified Mrs. Obama's statement with facts without commentary.
This is definitely one of those times when his huge ego and an overwhelming desire to prove he's smarter than everyone else got in the way of his good sense.
|
|
|
Post by 950nancy on Jul 28, 2016 3:29:58 GMT
It was totally inappropriate and offensive. Yes, they were paid and, yes, they were probably fed but many of them were still slaves. Some were also freed slaves. He could have clarified Mrs. Obama's statement with facts without commentary. This is definitely one of those times when his huge ego and an overwhelming desire to prove he's smarter than everyone else got in the way of his good sense.I thought I had read that their owners were paid. Could not agree more with the blue highlighted statement. I remember the walk off on the View when he started getting too arrogant.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 1:18:35 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2016 3:32:57 GMT
Bill OReilly is one of the biggest blowhards in news that I've ever seen in my life.
Having said that, what he was actually doing was backing Michelle up. He commented that people were criticizing her speech saying that it demeaned the USA. So he provided more in depth facts to back her up and declare her correct. He's an historian, that's what he does. Reporting on the facts of slavery does not mean you condone slavery.
|
|
|
Post by DinCA on Jul 28, 2016 3:43:10 GMT
It was totally inappropriate and offensive. Yes, they were paid and, yes, they were probably fed but many of them were still slaves. Some were also freed slaves. He could have clarified Mrs. Obama's statement with facts without commentary. This is definitely one of those times when his huge ego and an overwhelming desire to prove he's smarter than everyone else got in the way of his good sense.I thought I had read that their owners were paid. Could not agree more with the blue highlighted statement. I remember the walk off on the View when he started getting too arrogant. I just check Politifact and it's unclear who exactly was paid. There are records of payment but perhaps only the freed slaves actually received payment. Good catch! SaveSave
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jul 28, 2016 6:42:48 GMT
I keep seeing BO'R referred to as a historian, so off to Google I went: Mr. O'R got his BA in history in 1971, spent two years teaching History and English at a Catholic high school, and then went to graduate school in Journalism. (Interestingly, my brother took the same college-then-teach-for-two-years-then-grad-school route during the early 70s 'cause you could get draft deferments for being a student or a teacher.) Call me a snob, but I don't usually consider somebody with a BA - so no advanced degrees, not much research experience, and no published peer-reviewed product - a historian. (If a BA is the criteria, I'll start calling my husband a historian! Nah, it might go to his head. ) Mr. O'R's co-author does the research for the books about history.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 1:18:35 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2016 7:47:01 GMT
I keep seeing BO'R referred to as a historian, so off to Google I went: Mr. O'R got his BA in history in 1971, spent two years teaching History and English at a Catholic high school, and then went to graduate school in Journalism. (Interestingly, my brother took the same college-then-teach-for-two-years-then-grad-school route during the early 70s 'cause you could get draft deferments for being a student or a teacher.) Call me a snob, but I don't usually consider somebody with a BA - so no advanced degrees, not much research experience, and no published peer-reviewed product - a historian. (If a BA is the criteria, I'll start calling my husband a historian! Nah, it might go to his head. ) Mr. O'R's co-author does the research for the books about history. Webster says a historian is a person who studies or writes about history, a writer or compiler of a chronicle Since he writes books and produces television shows about history, I figured the classification fit.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Jul 28, 2016 11:47:39 GMT
I keep seeing BO'R referred to as a historian, so off to Google I went: Mr. O'R got his BA in history in 1971, spent two years teaching History and English at a Catholic high school, and then went to graduate school in Journalism. (Interestingly, my brother took the same college-then-teach-for-two-years-then-grad-school route during the early 70s 'cause you could get draft deferments for being a student or a teacher.) Call me a snob, but I don't usually consider somebody with a BA - so no advanced degrees, not much research experience, and no published peer-reviewed product - a historian. (If a BA is the criteria, I'll start calling my husband a historian! Nah, it might go to his head. ) Mr. O'R's co-author does the research for the books about history. I have one of those BA's in History and I can promise other than a slight tendency to lecture my children (to which they mostly roll their eyes and suggest politely that the cats would make a better audience) and a penchant for watching shows like "Mao-Revolutionary Hero or Mass Murderer" I am NOT a historian. I wouldn't even begin to pretend otherwise. In my world peer review consists of a child suggesting that I shouldn't wear my Converse All Stars (pink, thank you very much) with the exact quote being "you need to keep those 1980's wanna be shoes far, far away from me." (on the more serious side, I think that it does allow me to look at current events with a different viewpoint of the longer game vs. knee jerk reactions of today's news cycle.)
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 28, 2016 11:57:58 GMT
I keep seeing BO'R referred to as a historian, so off to Google I went: Mr. O'R got his BA in history in 1971, spent two years teaching History and English at a Catholic high school, and then went to graduate school in Journalism. (Interestingly, my brother took the same college-then-teach-for-two-years-then-grad-school route during the early 70s 'cause you could get draft deferments for being a student or a teacher.) Call me a snob, but I don't usually consider somebody with a BA - so no advanced degrees, not much research experience, and no published peer-reviewed product - a historian. (If a BA is the criteria, I'll start calling my husband a historian! Nah, it might go to his head. ) Mr. O'R's co-author does the research for the books about history. I have one of those BA's in History and I can promise other than a slight tendency to lecture my children (to which they mostly roll their eyes and suggest politely that the cats would make a better audience) and a penchant for watching shows like "Mao-Revolutionary Hero or Mass Murderer" I am NOT a historian. I wouldn't even begin to pretend otherwise. In my world peer review consists of a child suggesting that I shouldn't wear my Converse All Stars (pink, thank you very much) with the exact quote being "you need to keep those 1980's wanna be shoes far, far away from me." (on the more serious side, I think that it does allow me to look at current events with a different viewpoint of the longer game vs. knee jerk reactions of today's news cycle.) My DH actually IS an historian - with an honors MA and his thesis converted into an article published in, yes, a peer-reviewed journal, and experience teaching college-level history courses - and would be the first to point out that history is not science, and that each writer brings his/her own bias to any work. Including Bill O'Reilly. He used to put our infant daughters to sleep by softly, gently recounting the stories of Napoleon's greatest battles.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Jul 28, 2016 12:05:01 GMT
I have one of those BA's in History and I can promise other than a slight tendency to lecture my children (to which they mostly roll their eyes and suggest politely that the cats would make a better audience) and a penchant for watching shows like "Mao-Revolutionary Hero or Mass Murderer" I am NOT a historian. I wouldn't even begin to pretend otherwise. In my world peer review consists of a child suggesting that I shouldn't wear my Converse All Stars (pink, thank you very much) with the exact quote being "you need to keep those 1980's wanna be shoes far, far away from me." (on the more serious side, I think that it does allow me to look at current events with a different viewpoint of the longer game vs. knee jerk reactions of today's news cycle.) My DH actually IS an historian - with an honors MA and his thesis converted into an article published in, yes, a peer-reviewed journal, and experience teaching college-level history courses - and would be the first to point out that history is not science, and that each writer brings his/her own bias to any work. Including Bill O'Reilly. He used to put our infant daughters to sleep by softly, gently recounting the stories of Napoleon's greatest battles. I hope you don't mind, but I am going to tell me boys this. They will definitely appreciate it. One of the funniest things that has happened since boy 1 went off to school. I get a text out of the blue asking a multi-part question about a specific period of time in China's history. Apparently the boy was trying to write a paper and he said "I don't want to google, and you are probably missing lecturing me.'
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Jul 28, 2016 13:49:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Jul 28, 2016 13:52:11 GMT
One of the funniest things that has happened since boy 1 went off to school. I get a text out of the blue asking a multi-part question about a specific period of time in China's history. Apparently the boy was trying to write a paper and he said "I don't want to google, and you are probably missing lecturing me.' Okay, that's adorable and hilarious! SaveSave
|
|
|
Post by jackie on Jul 28, 2016 14:13:24 GMT
I watched Michelle's speech and I watched the show where Bill O' Reilly made his comments (which is in common since I am not a fan of Fox news).
Here is my take, it was a really stupid choice of words. He absolutely shouldn't have said "well-fed slaves". It was innecessary, in poor taste, and IMO, completely minimized the concept that these people were SLAVES!
BUT, in the context of his whole show (and I did watch the whole thing), I don't think he meant it the way it seemed. I think he was responding to the critics who said Michelle's comments were false, that immigrants built the white house, not slaves. He said her comments were correct, but then went on to provide additional details (again, some of the details didn't really need to be said). He also praised her speech and said it was inspirational. And believe me, I have personally read from some conservative folks on FB some crazy criticism of her speech--it was Anti-American, race baiting, hateful...I mean people are truly saying this! O'Reilly actually liked her soeech, complimented it and silenced the critics who said it was historically inaccurate. Honestly, despite his poor word choices, that was truly what I took from his comments.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Jul 28, 2016 14:27:33 GMT
One of the funniest things that has happened since boy 1 went off to school. I get a text out of the blue asking a multi-part question about a specific period of time in China's history. Apparently the boy was trying to write a paper and he said "I don't want to google, and you are probably missing lecturing me.' Okay, that's adorable and hilarious! SaveSaveI told him he had to credit me as a source and it better not be 'my mom.'
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 1:18:35 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2016 19:51:47 GMT
This thread has really been weighing on my mind. It's the perfect example of why we will never ever get to REAL conversation on race relations, gay rights, illegal immigration, refugees, the election, gun safety, etc.
When there is no standard of logic applied to what gets you labeled as a racist, homophobe, xenophobe, bigot, paranoid gun toting, bible clinging, nutjob, idiot evil Republican, etc., it becomes nothing but a one sided conversation. Threads become all about fending off the personal character assassinations and the conversation gets buried. Or the "incorrect" view is silenced and the conversation just doesn't happen.
How can we ever expect to have honest, productive discussions, when something like watching the actual show, understanding and stating the purpose of his segment was to back Michelle Obama up and correct those ignorant claims that her speech discredited the USA, is then called racism?
How can you even begin to make people understand what it is you need them to understand when you condemned everyone as evil racists for something like NOT jumping on the bandwagon of taking one line from the entire segment and make uninformed assumptions about it?
Being able to listen and comprehend does not fall under the definition of racism, but that fact doesn't seem to matter to some and anyone and everyone who disagrees is a racist. Or fill in the blank of the topic of discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 28, 2016 19:57:17 GMT
Yes, since exactly one person called others racist, the conversation has been completely shut down.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jul 28, 2016 20:01:39 GMT
Webster says a historian is a person who studies or writes about history, a writer or compiler of a chronicle Since he writes books and produces television shows about history, I figured the classification fit. You forgot to call me a snob. I'll give you the dictionary definition, but I think I can at least take the position that his is not the research/writing process of a typical historian or writer of history. From what I can find about his books, his co-author does the studying, compiling, and first-draft writing, then BO'R steps in to insert his signature style. And maybe you're right that as an executive producer of his new TV history series, BO'R is involved in studying, compiling, or writing content. I don't know much about executive producers. IMBD lists more executive producers, a bunch of other producers, and a bigger bunch of writers. Should we consider them all historians? Hard to know. Total tangent from my google rabbit hole late last night: He's gotten a good dose of criticism from other historians about the accuracy of his first few "Killing..." books. (His rejoinder was basically that they're just miffed that they've toiled in obscurity for years while he sells millions of books. Heh.) The National Park Service won't sell his Lincoln book in the Ford Theatre bookstore and the Reagan Library won't sell his Reagan book. Joint criticism from four Reagan historians Interestingly, he also got flack from Conservatives about the accuracy of his book about President Reagan. George Will weighs in
|
|
janeliz
Drama Llama
I'm the Wiz and nobody beats me.
Posts: 5,633
Jun 26, 2014 14:35:07 GMT
|
Post by janeliz on Jul 28, 2016 20:38:25 GMT
This thread has really been weighing on my mind. It's the perfect example of why we will never ever get to REAL conversation on race relations, gay rights, illegal immigration, refugees, the election, gun safety, etc. When there is no standard of logic applied to what gets you labeled as a racist, homophobe, xenophobe, bigot, paranoid gun toting, bible clinging, nutjob, idiot evil Republican, etc., it becomes nothing but a one sided conversation. Threads become all about fending off the personal character assassinations and the conversation gets buried. Or the "incorrect" view is silenced and the conversation just doesn't happen. How can we ever expect to have honest, productive discussions, when something like watching the actual show, understanding and stating the purpose of his segment was to back Michelle Obama up and correct those ignorant claims that her speech discredited the USA, is then called racism? How can you even begin to make people understand what it is you need them to understand when you condemned everyone as evil racists for something like NOT jumping on the bandwagon of taking one line from the entire segment and make uninformed assumptions about it? Being able to listen and comprehend does not fall under the definition of racism, but that fact doesn't seem to matter to some and anyone and everyone who disagrees is a racist. Or fill in the blank of the topic of discussion. Here's how I see it---quite often, when someone feels that another's actions and words make them bigoted and racist, you can count on a segment of people becoming immediately defensive and insistent that that accuser is playing the race card, shutting down discussion, bullying, etc. etc. I believe that Bill O'Reilly and Fox News have a shared history of race-baiting and dog-whistle politics. That's how I feel. You probably disagree. That's ok by me, and I don't feel sensitive about that or offended by your or anyone else's disagreement. We can interact on any other thread and I won't give it another thought, because I didn't call you or anyone else on this board a racist. Someone else may have, and you should address your concerns to that poster. That's fair. I believe Bill O'Reilly is a racist. He likely disagrees and sees himself as a historical scholar trying to share his knowledge of American history. I truly don't think you or anyone else should feel offended by my belief that he's a bigot (I believe the descriptive I used was "racist asshole").
|
|
|
Post by oliquig on Jul 28, 2016 20:47:45 GMT
I watched Michelle's speech and I watched the show where Bill O' Reilly made his comments (which is in common since I am not a fan of Fox news). Here is my take, it was a really stupid choice of words. He absolutely shouldn't have said "well-fed slaves". It was innecessary, in poor taste, and IMO, completely minimized the concept that these people were SLAVES! BUT, in the context of his whole show (and I did watch the whole thing), I don't think he meant it the way it seemed. I think he was responding to the critics who said Michelle's comments were false, that immigrants built the white house, not slaves. He said her comments were correct, but then went on to provide additional details (again, some of the details didn't really need to be said). He also praised her speech and said it was inspirational. And believe me, I have personally read from some conservative folks on FB some crazy criticism of her speech--it was Anti-American, race baiting, hateful...I mean people are truly saying this! O'Reilly actually liked her soeech, complimented it and silenced the critics who said it was historically inaccurate. Honestly, despite his poor word choices, that was truly what I took from his comments. I agree with this. He chose his words poorly and gave his detractors a fabulous sound bite. As to whether or not you (general you) have a racial bias, if you didn't have an initial pause at his wording, you might want to check on that.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jul 28, 2016 20:57:11 GMT
He chose his words poorly and gave his detractors a fabulous sound bite. As to whether or not you (general you) have a racial bias, if you didn't have an initial pause at his wording, you might want to check on that. [bold mine] Re: wording: Can we all circle in and agree that he could have chosen different words to say "...the government stopped hiring slave labor..."? Hiring. Yeah, yeah: technically, the labor was hired from the slaveowners, but that there was a wincingly unfortunate turn of phrase, Billy.
|
|