Season 4 Talk

[TiffanyNichelle]

21 minutes ago, qtpye said:

I have just started watching this last season and just wanted to ask, is there any reason for why Ruby hates Bow so much?  Bow is a great mother, a doctor, and is very patient with Andre.  Most women would kill for a daughter in law like that.

Even in her depression, Tracy looked radiant.

I think the simple answer is all sitcom mother-in-laws have to hate the wife because how dare they now be the most important woman in their sons' lives. It's a lazy way to use female jealousy for jokes. If the MIL & DIL got along where is the comedy?? RME.

[Dee]

13 hours ago, Star Aristille said:

It's not working.  At all.

At this point the Johnsons should feel lucky she hasn't burned the house down. Yet.

[ljenkins782]

1 hour ago, Boofish said:

Everyone has every right to treat people however they choose but people have a right to not that shit from nobody. Ruby would never be welcome to live in my home. 

Dre is lucky to have Bow considering the flashbacks of the way he was raised. She is a loving wife and mother with a successful career. She has never once treated Dre the way Pops and Ruby treated each other.  Ruby is jealous and it's an ugly jealously. I don't remember one instance when Bow's mother or anyone in her family was rude to the Johnsons but if they were "they had every right to treat them that way" considering how they treat their daughter/sister. No offense to you but that's some messed up B.S.

Bow's mom was always dismissive of Dre. She's a different personality so it doesn't come across as harsh as Ruby, but she definitely does not like Dre and makes it known. 

Quote

Even in her depression, Tracy looked radiant.

It's kind of amazing how she can look good no matter how much they try to ugly her up. I don't even think her face is technically that pretty, but somehow she always looks stunning overall.  

[Deanie87]

On 10/11/2017 at 0:11 AM, OptimisticCynic said:

I couldn’t help but think that Bow was feeling overwhelmed because the show never once showed Dre actually taking care of his own baby. I don’t remember seeing him hold or feed him, offer to check on him when he cried (not even change his body language that he heard anything), nothing. Bow would run to check and he would just stand there frozen. Hormones and putting all the pressure on Bow to do everything, totally makes sense. I was waiting for someone to mention it.

Junior was actually taking care of the baby when Bow was going through stuff (that we could see)

Dre was too busy being concerned about how HE was affected by Bow having PPD. Ugh, he grates! I know that he cares about her and eventually he was worried about her for her own sake, but I really wish he didn't have to go through the whole self-absorbed man-child routine first.  

Speaking of self-absorbed, the baby plot still isn't working for ME, despite Jr.'s adorable skin to skin method.

Edited October 12, 2017 by Deanie87

[ZaldamoWilder]

On 10/6/2017 at 11:53 PM, Winston9-DT3 said:

I'm not sure I like the insinuation in the lines Fishburn read at the very end, but whatever.   

The episode ends with a voiceover by Anthony Anderson (the series narrator) which one culture journalist described this way:

Quote

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/10/black-ish-juneteenth-musical/541953/

The episode ends with a meaningful twist—another way Black-ish has chosen to forego soothing comedy in favor of making a point. As an image of an American flag, red, white, and blue, fades to black and white, a voiceover reminds viewers that it wasn’t until 2009 that the United States officially apologized for slavery. S.Con.Res. 26—Black-ish’s camera pans across the document’s text—acknowledged that “the system of slavery and the visceral racism against people of African descent upon which it depended became enmeshed in the social fabric of the United States.” It called “on all people of the United States to work toward eliminating racial prejudices, injustices, and discrimination from our society.”

But the apology ended—and, thus, “Juneteenth: The Musical” ends—with the following disclaimer, all too revealing in its unapologetic legalism: “Nothing in this resolution (A) authorizes or supports any claim against the United States; or (B) serves as a settlement of any claim against the United States.”

 

The bolded may be what you're referring to.  If so, it's not an insinuation.  It is an unequivocal statement by the United States government that the acknowledgement contained in the 2009 resolution, aka the apology for slavery, will neither support nor serve as the basis for any legal consequence as a result thereof.   Somebody at the table where this was drawn up had the conversation that is happening all over this country and in this thread.  Okay, yeah we get it, slavery, racism, long time ago, blahblahcakes.  Now once we admit it happened, we're opening ourselves up for litigation.  Legal, stick some language in there that protects us from it.   Though, I doubt it's necessary, I can provide some clarity on who we, we're and us refer to in my imaginary conference room. 

The episode was intended to be uncomfortable guys.

[TiffanyNichelle]

1 hour ago, ljenkins782 said:

Bow's mom was always dismissive of Dre. She's a different personality so it doesn't come across as harsh as Ruby, but she definitely does not like Dre and makes it known. 

It's kind of amazing how she can look good no matter how much they try to ugly her up. I don't even think her face is technically that pretty, but somehow she always looks stunning overall.  

IMO the thing with Bow's mom is that she's barely on when Ruby is on every episode making the same jokes about Bow all the time.

[possibilities]

I liked that Bow's doctor told Dre she wasn't convinced that Bow's anger toward him was from the PPD. And I was thrilled that Bow's finally yelling at Ruby, and Dre taking Bow's side, seemed to coincide with her starting to feel better. I was afraid they were going to play it off as "Bow lost her temper because she's sick" and was so relieved they made it basically the opposite of that.

I felt terrible for Josh getting that horrible note. A homemade blanket is a wonderful gift! Plus, it gives some depth to his character, because it's not a stereotypical gift a stereotypical guy would give. I hope we get to see the actual blanket and it's not a horrible mess as Diane implied.

I guess they don't still have a nanny.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ZaldamoWilder said:

If so, it's not an insinuation.  It is an unequivocal statement by the United States government that the acknowledgement contained in the 2009 resolution, aka the apology for slavery, will neither support nor serve as the basis for any legal consequence as a result thereof.

The statement itself isn't an insinuation, of course.  The show ending on that statement is insinuating the apology fell far short by adding legalese to protect the government against lawsuits today, I'm assuming?  That's the insinuation I don't love.  I'll leave it at that.  

[ZaldamoWilder]

9 minutes ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

The statement itself isn't an insinuation, of course.  The show ending on that statement is insinuating the apology fell far short by adding legalese to protect the government against lawsuits today, I'm assuming?  That's the insinuation I don't love.  I'll leave it at that.  

Ok, I gotcha.   Thank you for clarifying.  I see why it could be found offensive.  I'm still a bit unclear as to why, but I don't want you to keep dialoguing if you find it (or me) too confrontational.   Unfortunately, what you've specified is also not an insinuation.  It did fall far short.    What the government said acknowledged that the United States was wrong to legalize an institution of dehumanization and furthermore the generational results of it must stop.   Which is lovely, considering it came from the same country that waged a war with itself over its abolishment.   The legalese added insult to unhealed injury.    So you acknowledge that you sanctioned an atrocity the consequences of which affect an entire race to this day, but we draw the line at emotion.  If ya'll thnk you're gonna be able to sue us for reparations and actually collect on the 40 acres and a mule promise Lincoln made to you, you're beat.  Just in case it had crossed your mind.    In other words, the sincerity of contrition 150 years overdue was cancelled by the summary of:  ok we're sorry but we don't owe you shit so don't even bother trying to come for it. 

When I have an argument with my dude (if (really when, but let's go with if) he's wrong) and I explain and he nods and gets it then he's quiet and finally at the end of the month, I get an apology worded like this:  I just want you to know, I'm truly sorry.......but.   Baybay?  if it even sounds like there are more words after sorry, we're not finished fighting.  ;)

I just realized there was a much less wordy way to explain this.   The legalese is the protection against reparations claims from the descendants of slaves. 

[dungeonwriter]

 It's hard to feel sorry for Ruby, when she's emotionally abusive to Bow. I understand her concerns for the milk, but unintentionally, she shamed Bow for taking meds. My friend felt guilty taking her inhaler for asthma, an inhaler 100% safe for nursing. Bow already feels horrible, and being accused of poisoning her milk for her baby is unspeakable. Tracee hit it out of the park, standing up for herself and Ruby redeemed herself a tiny bit by reassuring her. 

But I still wouldn't let her back in. 

[Court]

Ruby hates Bow because 

1.) Bow married her son and took her man child mama's boy away from her. 

2.) Bow is half white. 

[Black Knight]

The thing about Ruby's concern about the milk is that it's incredibly condescending. Bow is a doctor. She's fully aware that there can be issues with drugs, which is why, as we saw, she immediately asked her own doctor about whether it would be safe to nurse while on this medication. It's beyond insulting to bring it up as if Bow doesn't know anything about this subject or what questions to ask her doctor before she takes a medication. It was yet one more instance of Ruby having zero respect for her daughter-in-law.

And no, Ruby does not have "every right" to treat Bow as she does, not if "every right" means without consequences for her behavior. She got her ass booted indefinitely from the house and that's as it should be.

As for the issue of Dre and Bow's mother, a few things. First, Bow's mother does not live in Dre's home and isn't continually trying to step into his role in the family like Ruby does with Bow. Second, knowing what Dre is like, I'm sure he started the problem between them. It's unlikely he made any real effort to make a good impression on Bow's mother, whereas Bow would have tried hard with Ruby and would still like to get along with her. Third, even though she should do a better job of hiding how she feels, Bow's mother's POV on Dre is much more justifiable than Ruby's on Bow. Her daughter is married to someone who's a giant man-baby 95% of the time, who treats even the people he loves like crap. Ruby, on the other hand, should be thrilled that her daughter-in-law is someone like Bow, but she hates her just for being competition.

[Dee]

Earl is every bit as bad as Ruby 'supposedly' is yet his behavior is treated as "cute."

Also, D'Alicia is incessantly rude to Andre and his relatives, but because Andre is often a jerk, that means her behavior is perfectly acceptable; or that Rainbow doesn't have to bear any responsibility for allowing her mother to be a haughty snob? And, frankly, Rainbow herself, is a patronizing shrew, who is just as guilty of being a 'bully' as the rest of her family, so if Ruby's behavior makes her a 'bully' then so does Rainbow's.

Edited October 13, 2017 by Dee

[NUguy514]

1 hour ago, Court said:

Ruby hates Bow because 

1.) Bow married her son and took her man child mama's boy away from her. 

2.) Bow is half white. 

Basically, and...

[jhlipton]

11 hours ago, ljenkins782 said:

Bow's mom was always dismissive of Dre. She's a different personality so it doesn't come across as harsh as Ruby, but she definitely does not like Dre and makes it known.

And I don't recall her being a bully to him.

@Dee, I think we're watching different shows, and that's all I'll say.

[jhlipton]

9 hours ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

The statement itself isn't an insinuation, of course.  The show ending on that statement is insinuating the apology fell far short by adding legalese to protect the government against lawsuits today, I'm assuming?  That's the insinuation I don't love.  I'll leave it at that.  

That's be cause, as @ZaldamoWilder said, it did fall short -- way short.  First of all, the south won the Civil War.  When Cromwell revolted against the Crown, he and all his followers were hung as traitors -- they did not get their property back (the South's "property" including blacks now laboring as "sharecroppers" instead of slaves).  They did not get statues as part of their heritage.  They did not get to run for office in the country they spat on.  Every single acre of the South should have been seized and turned over to the former slaves [property owned by Native Americans was seized by the conquering forces around the same time as the Civil War, but that's different... for... reasons.].  But "reconciliation" with their fellow whites was far more important to the North, which is why we are where we are now.

[Guest]

I didn't love this one.  It bugged me that kept they calling it "post-partum", even the doctors.  That's an adjective, and it applies to every woman who's just given birth.  

[ljenkins782]

1 hour ago, jhlipton said:

And I don't recall her being a bully to him.
 

No one said she was a bully to him. Just that she doesn't like him and didn't hide it. 

[jhlipton]

6 hours ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

I didn't love this one.  It bugged me that kept they calling it "post-partum", even the doctors.  That's an adjective, and it applies to every woman who's just given birth.  

Post-Partum Depression is the name of the condition because it happens to women who have just given birth.  Not every woman gets it, and, like Bow, not every woman gets it with every birth, but many do.  PPD is a real thing, even if it bugs you.

[fountain]

I think the poster meant because the word depression was left off the post-partum.  

I am hoping Ruby moving out means we get a bit of a break from her, she is the least enjoyable part of the show as I cannot stand the continual meanness.  Pops can be annoying too but he doesn’t seem around as much.

To me as a mother, feeding my breast fed baby formula is a horrific act because feeding your kid formula is a decision only parents get to make.  It would be like getting the baby circumcised without the parents permission.

Edited October 13, 2017 by fountain

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, fountain said:

I think the poster meant because the word depression was left off the post-partum.  

 

 

Exactly.  Thank you.  There is no disorder called 'post-partum'.  They can call it PPD or post-partum depression or depression but calling it 'post-partum' is stupid.  You wouldn't say someone has 'post-traumatic' for PTSD or 'gestational' for gestational diabetes.  Let the lay people use inaccurate, shorthand but not the doctors.  Our culture doesn't need to think 'post-partum' means 'sick', like they already think 'pre-menstrual' does.  It's a time frame, that's all.  

[ErinV]

I don't have experience with PPD, but I do have experience with depression, and I think TER knocked it out of the park with how she portrayed this.  I can see other shows having the actress crying hysterically all the time, and that wouldn't look as real as TER's performance did.  Plus how she didn't get better immediately after taking medication.  I was really impressed.

Pops is nowhere near as mean to Bow as Ruby is!  And they have showed (a few, but still) loving scenes between Bow and him.  I can only think of one nice scene with Ruby and Bow (when she was giving birth, if I remember correctly).

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 hour ago, ErinV said:

Pops is nowhere near as mean to Bow as Ruby is! 

I have never seen Pops being mean to Bow. To Dre? Yes. But not Bow.

[qtpye]

22 hours ago, TiffanyNichelle said:

IMO the thing with Bow's mom is that she's barely on when Ruby is on every episode making the same jokes about Bow all the time.

Bow's mom never tried to give Andre the monkey pox.

[Dee]

Earl is certainly mean to Rainbow. He makes fun of her parenting, her upbringing, her cooking, her job, her neuroses, etc. Everything Ruby is berated about, but the writers never make him bear any responsibility for it.

Edited October 13, 2017 by Dee

[jhlipton]

7 hours ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

Exactly.  Thank you. 

Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding!

[Joimiaroxeu]

Just referencing my earlier comment/question to say I wasn't particularly bothered by the "insinuation" because I saw it as fairly deliberate and overt and was fine with it. The out clause in that 2009 apology/declaration was seen by many at the time for what it was--a relatively meaningless and self-contradictory gesture. What I find curious is why Black-ish brought it up again now. Reparations will never be paid for slavery, at least not in any of our lifetimes. (And I still have mixed feelings about the Chappelle Show's "Reparations 2003" sketch. It probably fueled nightmares for certain people who were later involved in the writing of that 2009 statement.)

[jhlipton]

2 hours ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

Reparations will never be paid for slavery, at least not in any of our lifetimes.

At this point, from whom and to whom?  There's no answer to that that won't set off massive arguments (at best).

[BoogieBurns]

15 minutes ago, jhlipton said:

At this point, from whom and to whom?

To: black folks who can trace their ancestry to slavery

From: white folks who trace their ancestry to slave ownership. (Just off the top of my noggin)

[Joimiaroxeu]

21 minutes ago, jhlipton said:

At this point, from whom and to whom?  There's no answer to that that won't set off massive arguments (at best).

There were massive arguments, for example, about the Colonies becoming an independent country; women being allowed to vote; and, Black children being legally allowed to attend school with White children. Imagine where we'd be if the fear of massive arguments overruled any movement toward positive change.

I don't think there will ever be reparations paid for slavery because it would be prevented politically (largely due to the major opposing party controlling the executive and legislative branches of government), legally (via court challenges), and by guns (i.e., another civil war that won't be a simple North vs. South matter). Some of those factors could change in the foreseeable future but not enough. It'll be tens of generations from now if ever.

[jhlipton]

35 minutes ago, BoogieBurns said:

To: black folks who can trace their ancestry to slavery

From: white folks who trace their ancestry to slave ownership. (Just off the top of my noggin)

The white portion might be doable, but genealogical records for blacks aren't necessarily as available (often on purpose).  (My wife likes Finding Your Roots.)

7 minutes ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

Imagine where we'd be if the fear of massive arguments overruled any movement toward positive change.

True enough.  I'm not saying it can't be done -- just pointing out the (obvious?) obstacles.
The there's the question of how much do we take and how much do we give? 

==========================================

Since I am not descended from slaves or slave-owners, I have "no dog in this fight".  I do own to White Privilege, but that's (somewhat) different.

Edited October 14, 2017 by jhlipton

[Kimmmmmm]

On October 12, 2017 at 11:48 AM, mookster said:

I thought Tracee handled the PPD beautifully, but Dre still irritates me. I know they're all broadly drawn, but his self-centeredness drives me batty and makes me wonder what Rainbow ever saw in him. Saying he wants Rainbow to keep up breastfeeding because it helps with weight loss?! Seriously? And what happened to the parental leave he was supposed to take? Junior and the kids were doing everything Dre should have been doing. That said, I do still love the comic bits, like Pops, Jack and Diane and the office interactions. 

Beautifully put...Dre has always sneered at Bow's family, as well. Agree about the comic bits, except for Diane.  Dre, Ruby AND Diane should be exiled.

[dungeonwriter]

I think the difference for me was Ruby hit too deep, it was way below the belt. 

The snarking just made me roll my eyes, but Tracee's exquisite portrayal of severe depression made it clear how bad it had gotten. And Ruby just went that one step that made it no longer okay, it was beyond the pale. What she did was enough to send Bow into a very bad spiral, and risk the safety of the family. 

[qtpye]

On 10/13/2017 at 1:19 PM, Dee said:

Earl is certainly mean to Rainbow. He makes fun of her parenting, her upbringing, her cooking, her job, her neuroses, etc. Everything Ruby is berated about, but the writers never make him bear any responsibility for it.

The difference for me is that Earl would make fun of anyone with beliefs or values that are different then his (it does not make him a great person).  With Ruby, she makes sure that Rainbow always knows that IT IS PERSONAL.  Like when Rainbow wanted a butterscotch and she won't give her one, but gives it to everyone else.

[amaranta]

Just finished watching.  That scene in the kitchen with TER and JL was a thing of beauty.  I watched it twice; that was some great acting - so real.

I guess the Thank you note story line was to bring in some comedy but I think it would have worked better if they had just used it as the tag, with the recipients reading them - especially Charlie's.  The rest felt out of place.

I loved Junior stepping in to help; he's growing up.

[possibilities]

2 hours ago, amaranta said:

I loved Junior stepping in to help; he's growing up.

Remember when they were trying to figure out who would take care of the kids if Bow and Dre died? They decided on Zoe. But she was pretty checked out this episode. Junior is really the one who knew what to do and did it. More than Dre did, for that matter. I know he's too young to become the head of household, but in a few years he won't be, and they really played it this week like Zoe was not the right choice after all.

[jhlipton]

8 hours ago, possibilities said:

Junior is really the one who knew what to do and did it.

But of course he didn't get any praise or even recognition for it.  He's still the punching bag for the family.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

There are certain things that grandparents and older siblings are allowed to do. They can get the baby new outfits. They can give the baby toys. (although both of these things should be within reason and the parents always have the option to veto clothes or toys)

There are certain things that no one should do but the parents. No one but the parents should decide when the baby gets its first haircut (my grandmother was babysitting my cousin and when my aunt went to pick up her baby, she saw to her horror that my grandmother had just decided to give the baby her first haircut). No one but the parents should decide if/when the kid can get its ears pierced. No one but the parents should decide if the baby should switch from breastfeeding to formula.

I don't care how concerned Ruby was about Bow's medication. She had NO right to make that decision, especially without discussing it with both Bow and Dre first. She didn't just cross a line. She jumped right over it and then kept running. And let's be real - this was less about Ruby actually being concerned about the baby's health/safety and more about her thinking that she is always right and that she can say or do whatever she wants to Bow because Dre never says a damn thing. When he later said to Bow, "Did you really think I would take her side over yours?" I yelled, "YES, because that's what you do ALL THE TIME!"

Edited October 16, 2017 by ElectricBoogaloo
verb tense matters

[jhlipton]

4 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

When he later said to Bow, "Did you really think I would take her side over yours?" I yelled, "YES, because that's what you do ALL THE TIME!"

THIS!

[ZaldamoWilder]

On 10/13/2017 at 9:18 PM, Joimiaroxeu said:

Just referencing my earlier comment/question to say I wasn't particularly bothered by the "insinuation" because I saw it as fairly deliberate and overt and was fine with it. The out clause in that 2009 apology/declaration was seen by many at the time for what it was--a relatively meaningless and self-contradictory gesture. What I find curious is why Black-ish brought it up again now. Reparations will never be paid for slavery, at least not in any of our lifetimes. (And I still have mixed feelings about the Chappelle Show's "Reparations 2003" sketch. It probably fueled nightmares for certain people who were later involved in the writing of that 2009 statement.)

I don't think the show brought up reparations per se.  But in explaining the significance of Juneteenth, had to get into a peripheral discussion about slavery.   Which led naturally to:  how does the story end?  Which brought us to the verbatim text of the 2009 resolution.  Which deftly defines, but never mentions the word.   I understand the supposed trick to legalese is focusing on the unsaid. 

Truth is, nearly every marginalized group of people in the world have sought, if not been awarded reparations.   This is the only instance I've ever heard of whereby they are barred from pursuit.   Least they could've done was make it a separate document.  Shit.  Lol.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Dre's favorite thing to do in that situation is to blame the victim. What usually happens:

• Ruby insults and/or criticizes Bow
• Bow gets upset
• Dre defends Ruby and/or tells Bow that she is wrong

That doesn't sound like the kind of husband who would EVER take Bow's side so I was actually shocked when he backed Bow up and said that Ruby had to leave the house. I was sure that it would be a matter of hours before that mama's boy was whining to Bow about how sad/sorry/upset Ruby was and that they had to let her move back in.

[Joimiaroxeu]

Quote

I don't think the show brought up reparations per se.

But didn't they mention "40 acres and a mule"? That essentially was meant to be reparations, I think. I take the rest of your point though except the use of the word "marginalized." That, IMO, is a fairly bland depiction of the horrors of slavery and generations of subsequent suffering for many slave descendants.

It is perhaps rather pointless to get into contests about which groups of people have suffered the most and ought to receive some kind of financial atonement. And since the family on Black-ish is doing/has done so well comparatively, it's perhaps difficult for many to see them as "deserving" or "needing." That's one of the reasons it still surprises me that the show even went there. I don't think Juneteenth is observed all that much outside of Texas and areas where significant numbers of Black Texans migrated to. Plenty of people don't see it as something to celebrate at all.

[ZaldamoWilder]

1 hour ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

But didn't they mention "40 acres and a mule"? That essentially was meant to be reparations, I think. I take the rest of your point though except the use of the word "marginalized." That, IMO, is a fairly bland depiction of the horrors of slavery and generations of subsequent suffering for many slave descendants.

It is perhaps rather pointless to get into contests about which groups of people have suffered the most and ought to receive some kind of financial atonement. And since the family on Black-ish is doing/has done so well comparatively, it's perhaps difficult for many to see them as "deserving" or "needing." That's one of the reasons it still surprises me that the show even went there. I don't think Juneteenth is observed all that much outside of Texas and areas where significant numbers of Black Texans migrated to. Plenty of people don't see it as something to celebrate at all.

Yup, yup, I'm sorry, you're absolutely right, somebody said it to one of the kids during the musical.

Lol, intentionally so.  My pressure's 138/70 and I'm keeping it there.

Not perhaps, it's definitely pointless.  The comparison wasn't a who's had it worst contest.  I'm pretty sure that's a title nobody wants to win.  It was: of all the people this has historically applied to, there's only one group, that I'm aware, that has been legally prevented from making and staking their claim.   It isn't as though there's no existing precedent.  The descendants of Japanese Americans and Holocaust survivors successfully sued the U.S., Germany and Austria, respectively.  Ought to be able to is a matter of individual opinion, I spose, the point is the descendants of slaves can't.

[fishcakes]

3 hours ago, ZaldamoWilder said:

The descendants of Japanese Americans and Holocaust survivors successfully sued the U.S., Germany and Austria, respectively.

It wasn't descendants of Japanese Americans who sued; it was the internees themselves. They lost the lawsuit, but a Congressional commission that investigated the internment recommended that each surviving internee receive $20,000. That was in the early 80s and it was another ten years before any payments were appropriated by Congress, by which time, many thousands more survivors had died. In 1992, approximately 80,000 surviving internees (out of the 120,000 who had been incarcerated) each received $20,000 in redress. Descendants or other surviving family members of deceased internees, including those who died in the ten years after the commission's recommendation, didn't receive anything on their behalf.

I'm not saying this would or should be dispositive of any claims descendants of slaves have, but just that the handling of reparations for Japanese Americans wouldn't serve as precedent.

Edited October 16, 2017 by fishcakes

[OnceSane]

This conversation has veered off-topic.  If you want to continue the discussion, take it to the Social and Race Issues thread.

[ItCouldBeWorse]

On 10/12/2017 at 2:32 PM, possibilities said:

I guess they don't still have a nanny.

Yes, I kept thinking, wouldn't this be a really good time for Black Nanny to be available?  But then Junior would not have been as valuable. Zoe really didn't seem to have any interest in holding the baby. Thank goodness for Junior.  I assume he was in charge when Bow went to the store and to the doctor?

I dislike the trope of the crazed family babyproofing the house before or shortly after the baby is born. Now everyone is inconvenienced and the baby isn't close to crawling or pulling himself up, so a gate on the stairs or a latch on the toilet lid are a waste of time for now.  Also, unless the baby is able to pull a chair or ladder over to the access the high cabinet where the liquor is stored, that's also a waste of time, especially since there are martini glasses on an open shelf below (and on a cart near the window.)  If they must start babyproofing now, start with the things close to ground level.

Finally, after Ruby returns, I will be very interested in seeing where they will find an extra room for the baby to sleep in when he moves out of his parents' room. I doubt that Diane will be moving into Zoe's room, even though Zoe will be away at college a lot, Jack and Jr. don't seem likely to share, and I doubt that Dre will give up his massive walk-in closet.  Perhaps Ruby can be moved to the basement.

[OnceSane]

Quote

Dre brings everyone together for a rowdy family game night and the competition is fierce. The game of choice is Monopoly and as the night progresses, alliances are formed and some are pushed to their limits. Meanwhile, Bow makes it clear how she feels about Junior’s girlfriend, Megan.

[possibilities]

The kids-- not even the older kids-- did the babyproofing. I'm sure they had no idea what it was supposed to be like.

[ItCouldBeWorse]

Jack, who's not all there, did the babyproofing, but Junior followed him around after, giving critiques.

[mortonsalt]

This was funnier than the first two episodes, but I guess it's back to the status quo with Bow and Ruby unfortunately.