Posted on 05/19/2004 11:25:10 AM PDT by KeyLargo
Upcoming episodes are entitled, "Regime Change", "Shake Up", "The Reckoning", and "Judgment Day". Personally, I think the Governor made some wise choices, even with his decision to suspend the Sabbath rules. I imagine that pragmatism had to be the bottom line in those days with their very survival hanging in the balance.
I was very disgusted with the whole gay thing, though. It was an obvious set-up from the beginning. The sap even happened to know what the preacher was going to be talking about that Sunday. It seemed that the producers were actually going for "Survivor" set in 1628 with all the conflicts between characters and obvious effort to include those with, shall we say, diverse views. Too bad because I love the premise of this series and did enjoy Frontier House, especially all the whining from the women. LOL
I like these living histories, in theory.
PBS has gone over the cliff.
PC is their perversion. Most women, white and black, are pathetic, carping, social statement hags.
The Big O will swoop in the revolving door to ruin the last traces of "history" with Star status sychophancy.
Why do homos foist their sexuality onto any and all who are in proximity? Why don't normals announce their heterosexuality: "I want sex with women." Think about it.
'Coming out' is in itself an assault by PC standards.
I would have blown up at the producers over their slopy personnel choices and poor management of the "settlers".
This is unwatchable nonsenser because most of these clowns are 15 minute frauds showboating.
For 2008, PBS will broadcast America: 1969, the Republican War.
For the entire Hands on History Series.
http://www.shoppbs.org/family/index.jsp?categoryId=1412581&clickid=lftnav_sbs_txt
I know Cyrano here was trying to watch it - was interesting the first episode, although yeah the atheist thing was pretty lame. [I have heard the same "oh she doesn't give herself enough credit - they give it all to God" from atheists I've known too. they all kind of seem to say the same thing] I didn't see the coming out part, so that's news to me. Sounds like the whole thing is up s*it creek now. Once the family left to see about the fiance's funeral, no one who was left had a CLUE what to do and I just couldn't watch anymore. it was too painful - kind of like watching Survivor and seeing the emotional dregs of society trying to pull some kind of real team together when only one or two members have any real character... and those few are the ones that are nearly first to be voted off.
Why would anyone bother watching PBS, anyway? What a waste of time.
Have her dress up as if for winter to put in a garden, speaking only when spoke to. Have her use a chamber pot, bathing with sponge baths weekly. Have her carry water in buckets without using indoor faucets.
Have her learn to cook over an open fire pit using cast iron pots, occasionally catching her long dresses and long sleeves on fire. Fire killed many a frontier women. Look up antique and woild game cook books.
Marry her off at 12.
Then give her the final exam and her own convection oven/microwave and refridge/freezer.
Why do homos foist their sexuality onto any and all who are in proximity? Why don't normals announce their heterosexuality: "I want sex with women." Think about it.
My thoughts exactly. The theme of the meeting was telling people who you really are or something similar. While most people said what they did for a living,etc.. The gay guy's whole identity lies with who he likes to have sex with- other guys! What if the straight men stood up and said "i've been living a lie because I haven't announced to all of you that I like to have sex with women. I feel so liberated now that I've said that!" This 'coming out' was neither appropriate or necessary and made the whole thing seem really stupid. I'm glad he feels so much better now.
BUT NO!...They had to impose 17th Century morals, religion and social customs on people diametrically opposed to that in their core beliefs. In order for that to even come close to being a re-enactment, you would have to select only those people who today are closest in philosophy to that era. Using liberals and atheists was a recipe for disaster and a guarantee of failure for the Governor. It was not fair to require this fundamentalist Southern Baptist to enforce rules of 1628 upon people who don't have ANYTHING approaching the mindset of the original colonists.
There are people alive today who put God and their fellow man ABOVE their own selfishness and those people are the only ones who could approach an authentic replication of colonial life.
If these sissies, whiners and godless self-worshippers had been the first people from Europe upon this continent, they would have perished within a few months.
Only the fervor and dedication of hard-working faithful people could have actually founded this country.
This show could have been so much more realistically executed.
But what fun would that be? Seriously, only a few people here seem to get the point of the show, which is that most people nowadays couldn't hack it back then. If you had a bunch of people on the show who could hack it, who'd care? It would just be a reenactment, and bad television. The point of all these shows, going back to the original BBC Victorian House series, is to make modern people miserable by making live the way their ancestors did.
These PBS "reality" shows are my guilty pleasure - I've seen them all. I was looking forward to "Colonial House" because that time period is one of my favorites in American history. Trust PBS to ruin what could have been a wonderful educational tool by their PC agenda-making.
Deliberately picking atheists, femi-natzis, homos, and a liberal "theologian" as part of their core group of settlers was a darn shame. And yet for all the stupid remarks and complaints, I have found some of the participants really engaging: Jeff Wyre and his sweet daughter Bethany, the carpenter (Wood?), the freeman Tysdale, and the young woman (Jane?). Wyre has some very perceptive comments about his take on the experience and has gone into it with the right mind-set. His daughter is the kind of young Christian woman I'd like to see my own daughter immulate. And even though they are somewhat rowdy and profane, I'm getting a kick out of the English guys (I guess I'm a sucker for a British accent!).
The series wasn't what I hoped it would be, but I'll watch it all. Too bad it wasn't more "survivor-like", or stupid Michelle Voorhees and Johanthon "I'm-Coming-Out" would be HISTORY.
Actually, I think the "colonists" are the ones at fault here. Surely, they must have done some research (or gotten a briefing from PBS) on what life as a colonial settler would have been like.
Only the truly uneducated wouldn't have known that church attendance was mandatory, and absences were punished. If there were aspects of their character and belief which were non-negotiable, then they shouldn't have signed up for the project.
Although a Christian, I'm not a church-going man. Still, my expectation upon entering the series would be that I'd be sitting in church for six hours on Sunday. Because, in that day, I would have had to or be punished.
I can't even begin to guess what would have happened to someone who stood up in the middle of church to announce that he was a sodomite.
I have enjoyed some of the "House" series, but this is a joke. In the others, at least the folks made a (mostly) genuine attempt to live as the folks of the subject era did. They were educational in many respects, and very entertaining.
This program is blatantly anti-Christian and mocks our brave and faithful colonial founders as somehow unenlightened and inferior to modern American hedonists.
In retrospect, no Christian should have participated in this organized mockery of their faith.
I don't find it "entertaining" for PBS to make fun of devout Christians blindsided by the set-up. The Governor bemoans participants agreed, in writing, to abide by the laws of 1628 and are blatantly disregarding them. The Governor is made to look the fool for taking his role seriously while others undermine him.
The producers should throw the blatant offenders off the project for refusing to abide by signed agreements they executed. The producers undermine all authority of the Governor by not backing his enforcement of laws EVERYONE agreed to obey in advance. They should remove deliberate and chronic lawbreakers from the colony and send the scofflaws packing as real colonists might indeed have done.
This is more of the famous Clinton mantra: "It depends on my interpretation of the definition." (In this case, signed agreements to abide by the rules.)
The one thing this program does prove is moral relativism is ANARCHY. With moral relativism, your system cannot control me because I don't have to follow any system of laws I believe offensive to me, personally. I make up and follow my own law as I go along.
I look at this a little differently. Given the fact that Indians lived in America for thousands of years before we came, and since they did have wars, it would stand to reason that over time, they had the chance to kill more of one another than we did intentionally.
I think it would take some research to show that white incursion on "Indian land" killed fewer people over the brief period of that migration than Indians themselves. But what are we talking about here?
Denying that the incursion of whites in America didn't ultimately destroy the Indians seems dangerous. Would things have been different if we knew in advance that there was a choice?
If you were an Anglo-Saxon, Spanish, French, Italian, German, Dutch, or Slavic immigrant in 1650, and you were told that if you and millions of other whites would not choose to stay in Europe in the old world, "American Indians will no longer exist as they do now by 1900," what would you say?
I would have come here anyway. I would have done my best to get along with Indians, much the way my ancestors did, and I would have shot them down in their tracks like dogs if they had threatened my community.
Let's not forget how things were. We came with mixed intentions, and we survived. Are we going to survive now, or are we going to bleed to death like a sickling tribe that can't protect itself?
What ever the rest of you do, I'm going to go down fighting.
--------------------------------------------------
"Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - P. Henry
What we actually did was destroy their habitat. This is what eliminated the Indians. No one could have been worse on Indians than the Aztecs. Not only were they killing or enslaving their neighbors, but they ate a good many of them also.
Yes, and people who deny that westerners had a right to move in to America and replace those backward cultures with their own are siding with our enemies. Western civilization's epitaph will spell cultural relativism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.