S04.E26: Confederate monuments

[Athena]

Quote

Other segments: President Trump's response to Hurricane Maria's impact on Puerto Rico, Trump's feud with Rex Tillerson
Guests: Stephen Colbert

 

[scarynikki12]

The second Ollie started talking about Confederate monuments I KNEW that ugly statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest would make an appearance.  I don't drive on 65 much but, when I do, I always end up ranting to my steering wheel.  Such bullshit.

Nice to see Stephen.

That magazine cover was hilarious.  Is There A Gender Gap In Child Labor? was my favorite headline.

[Annber03]

First things first, YES to a Stephen Colbert statue :D. That was an awesome way to end the show. I like the alligator giving the finger, too :p. And I need to look up more on that female pilot. 

Second..."Do you know how expensive a slave was?" HOLY SHIT DUDE STOP TALKING NOW. How that guy he was arguing with didn't haul off and deck him after that supremely dumbass remark, I don't know. Oh. My. God. How do you even have the nerve...?

I think we need to keep harping on as much as possible about how recent a lot of those statues really are the next time somebody brings up the whole "honoring our past!" argument. 199-freaking-8. Come on, now. Really? I like, too, how these people are so concerned about "protecting history", but apparently don't seem to give a damn about how keeping those statues around and celebrating the Confederacy diminishes and ignores black people's history. 

Alongside all the other obvious reasons John Oliver mentioned, it's just mind-boggling that people are so hellbent on honoring a nation that doesn't even exist anymore. Do they think by waving their flags it's going to come back, or what? And why in the hell does anyone who lives in the north want to honor the Confederacy? 

As for the non-Confederate topics....like I said last week, Trump needs to just stop talking. Please, somebody, for the love of all that is good and sane, make him stop with the vague threats and ominous-sounding tweets and whatnot. We really cannot afford to keep going through this shtick every single week anymore. 

I would've been interested to hear a little more discussion on the tragedy in Vegas, but I suspect Oliver's going to discuss that more in depth as time goes on, too, especially as we continue to learn more about everything related to it. 

9 minutes ago, scarynikki12 said:

The second Ollie started talking about Confederate monuments I KNEW that ugly statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest would make an appearance.

He claimed it looked like a nickel on drugs. I think it looks like a relative of that creepy mascot for Burger King. Same disturbing facial expression and everything. 

[Victor the Crab]

Quote

STEPHEN FUCKING COLBERT TO END THE SHOW FOR THE FUCKING WIN!!!!!

That was very interesting in how Ollie segued from Jimmy Savile to Confederate memorials because both subjects are very rapey. That Confederate Santa and the moron screaming to the black guy how much slaves cost are both so well out of touch with reality you'd need NASA to contact them. Personally, I'd like to see all those Confederate monuments knocked down with a sledgehammer and a bulldozer for good measure.

[SeanC]

17 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

I think we need to keep harping on as much as possible about how recent a lot of those statues really are the next time somebody brings up the whole "honoring our past!" argument. 199-freaking-8. Come on, now. Really? 

Though that statue, it should be noted, is a privately-owned one erected by a guy on his own property.  It’s not a public issue whether that one stays up or not. 

[Annber03]

True. Just the fact that people still thought it was a good idea to keep erecting statues that recently, though, be it publicly or privately, is just surreal (though sadly not surprising) to think about. 

[Popples]

At first I thought those presidential wax figures the show bought a while back were going to be under the sheets when John was unveiling the statues at the end. And Stephen Colbert startled me; I thought he was a wax figure until he started waving.

In my experience, I've noticed the people whining about how the Confederacy is part of their heritage will be the first to tell Black people to "get over slavery." It must have taken a remarkable amount of restraint to not punch "do you know how expensive slaves were" guy in the face.

[ganesh]

10 hours ago, Annber03 said:

Second..."Do you know how expensive a slave was?" HOLY SHIT DUDE STOP TALKING NOW. How that guy he was arguing with didn't haul off and deck him after that supremely dumbass remark, I don't know. Oh. My. God. How do you even have the nerve...?

I mean. What do you say to that? I wish the other guy said, "Probably not as much as your dental bill will cost," and then clocked him.

 

10 hours ago, Annber03 said:

And why in the hell does anyone who lives in the north want to honor the Confederacy? 

There's apparently 2 monuments in Idaho. *IDAHO*. Which wasn't even a state then. 

I can't say that the show told me much of what I didn't know already. I didn't know about the Vice President dedicating the monument. Otherwise, I knew about when the monuments went up correlating with Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Act. I did like how John pointed out that all the articles of secession included references to slavery. I mean, yeah, it was about states' rights. The right to own people. 

I've yet to see any response from anyone in regards to "How about we just put them in a museum?" John's point was very salient: we have museums (and libraries) to preserve history, but we erect statues to worship whomever. I also want someone to ask if they think people will suddenly forget everything about the civil war if there's no statues around.

I know Trump was being a tool, but I'm fine with taking them all down. I like going to museums, and I also can read, so I'm not concerned about losing any history.

[Corgi-ears]

1 hour ago, ganesh said:

I can't say that the show told me much of what I didn't know already.

Fair, though I didn't know that "Spiro Agnew" was an anagram for "Grow a Penis." 

[Annber03]

I feel like that should be how everyone addresses Agnew now :D. Loved how they pointed out the sheer irony of him supporting traitors with his speech about the Confederacy. 

[peeayebee]

1 hour ago, Popples said:

In my experience, I've noticed the people whining about how the Confederacy is part of their heritage will be the first to tell Black people to "get over slavery." 

The hypocrisy is stunning. We need to preserve out history so we don't forget! But you? Get over it. It's in the past.

There's also a problem with people thinking only THEIR history is important. The thing is, we're all connected. In this instance, the Confederacy has no history without black slavery. You can't separate them. It's like having a body with bones but no muscles.

I've previously heard the idea about a museum. It's such a perfect idea. You can remember these people from history while learning more about their lives. BTW, I loved the photo of the kid rolling his eyes in the museum.

The VO for the Dolly Parton dinner show thing was so cringeworthy, esp the "friendly rivalry" betw the North and the South.

Loved the Hitler-Hanks Spectrum.

The "Now This" segment about newscasters drawing dicks included a clip of someone spray-painting a dick on the hood of a car. Has anyone else seen "American Vandal"? It's great.

[Milburn Stone]

7 minutes ago, peeayebee said:

The VO for the Dolly Parton dinner show thing was so cringeworthy, esp the "friendly rivalry" betw the North and the South.

I did not see the episode, but the segment was no doubt inspired by a pair of articles written for Slate by Aisha Harris. The first of them (from 8/24) is here:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2017/08/visiting_dolly_parton_s_dinner_show_dixie_stampede.html

Did the show give her credit? I can imagine (and certainly hope) they did.

[iMonrey]

I freely admit to laughing like a 12-year old at the clips of newscasters drawing dicks on the screen.

Quote

Fair, though I didn't know that "Spiro Agnew" was an anagram for "Grow a Penis." 

Coincidentally I just heard that anecdote from Dick Cavett on Paul Poundstone's podcast (Cavett himself told Spiro Agnew his name re-arranged was "grow a penis" and Agnew replied it also works as "grow a spine" but that he liked Cavett's better). I wonder if John's writers were listening to the same podcast.

I really liked the piece on the confederacy and the civil war, because I too have been told with some authority that the civil war was not in fact about slavery but about states rights. I don't know where I read or heard that but I recall at the time thinking the source was well informed and unbiased. John shot that crap down real fast.

Quote

I've yet to see any response from anyone in regards to "How about we just put them in a museum?"

Yeah - I mean, you can have your dumb statues but put them somewhere appropriate like museum or a historical society, not outside city hall.

[Annber03]

2 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

I freely admit to laughing like a 12-year old at the clips of newscasters drawing dicks on the screen.

Same :D. I especially loved it when the people realized halfway through just what they were starting to draw and were like, "Noooooo! Stop!" 

I also love how apparently easy it is to make almost anything look like a dick :p. 

Quote

Yeah - I mean, you can have your dumb statues but put them somewhere appropriate like museum or a historical society, not outside city hall.

Exactly. People make it sound like losing the statues means we've practically literally erased the history and...no. It doesn't work that way. 

[ganesh]

22 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

Quote

Yeah - I mean, you can have your dumb statues but put them somewhere appropriate like museum or a historical society, not outside city hall.

Exactly. People make it sound like losing the statues means we've practically literally erased the history and...no. It doesn't work that way. 

Or just not on public land. I mean, like they showed on the highway. If you're so into your history and truly feel the need to preserve it, then you can commission a monument in your yard. 

I'd even argue the opposite. For all these people saying "we can't ignore history", I doubt they were giving any history much thought until people decided that maybe it was time to take the statues down and then they're screaming about history. I find this show to be an interesting parallel to the anthem controversy in that it seems like on both issues it's a bunch of white people dictating and clutching their pearls over a singular point of view to nonwhite people. If taking down a statue or people kneeling is making you so upset, I think that says much more about your fragile mindset of being nudged outside your own worldview than anything else. 

I still don't get the "how much you cost" guy. He's saying his family didn't own slaves because they cost too much. But if they still fought in the civil war, then they were fighting for others to own slaves anyway. If they didn't own slaves and didn't fight, then waving the flag around is effectively meaningless. The logical convolutions are mind boggling. 

[meowmommy]

2 hours ago, ganesh said:

I still don't get the "how much you cost" guy. He's saying his family didn't own slaves because they cost too much. But if they still fought in the civil war, then they were fighting for others to own slaves anyway. If they didn't own slaves and didn't fight, then waving the flag around is effectively meaningless. The logical convolutions are mind boggling. 

That's what confounded me.  The war for slavery was fought by thousands of poor Southerners who never owned a slave--so they had to have been effectively manipulated into thinking there was another reason.  So it was not just the cause, it was The Glorious Cause. 

Loved the sly little continuation of the five-day vs one-day digs between Stephen and John.

Oh....and I liked Chocolat, strange movie though it was.

Edited October 9, 2017 by meowmommy

[attica]

Robert E Lee graduated West Point (eventually serving as its Superintendent), and even though he took up arms against the nation he'd sworn an oath to protect, there is a barracks there now that bears his name. Even though the land on which his plantation stood was confiscated by the US government and is now Arlington Cemetery. That's some pretty impressive reputation jujitsu.

I don't know how any statue of Stephen Colbert could even do justice to the living article. He'll just have to live forever.

Edited October 9, 2017 by attica

[TV Anonymous]

4 hours ago, ganesh said:

I still don't get the "how much you cost" guy. He's saying his family didn't own slaves because they cost too much. But if they still fought in the civil war, then they were fighting for others to own slaves anyway. If they didn't own slaves and didn't fight, then waving the flag around is effectively meaningless. The logical convolutions are mind boggling. 

Because in the minds of Confederacy sympathizers, they fought not because they wanted to keep their slaves per se - they might not even have owned slaves - but they fought because 'foreign' power - that was the Northern States - wanted to dictate what they could and could not do. In a way, it is akin to the War in Iraq. Members of U.S. troops in Iraq may or may not have agreed with Bush Jr.'s policies. They may or may not have seen the war as just. But they went to war anyway. Because their country called and because it was their duties to go to war and fight.

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, TV Anonymous said:

In a way, it is akin to the War in Iraq. Members of U.S. troops in Iraq may or may not have agreed with Bush Jr.'s policies. They may or may not have seen the war as just. But they went to war anyway. Because their country called and because it was their duties to go to war and fight.

IMO, there's a huge difference, in that Americans who opposed the wars in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq went to war anyway, because their country called.  Southerners who fought in the Civil War for the Confederacy resisted the call of their country--unlike many Southerners who served in the Union forces--and instead joined an armed rebellion, and chose to kill fellow citizens.  And that had to take some serious groupthink in an era without television, radio, internet, automobiles, mass transit, or other efficient means of bringing people and thoughts together.

Edited October 9, 2017 by meowmommy

[paigow]

Were there good people on both sides of the Civil War? Problem solved....

[dcalley]

I watched the Larry David episode of Finding Your Roots. He and Bernie Sanders are distant cousins!

[DEL901]

1 hour ago, paigow said:

Were there good people on both sides of the Civil War? Problem solved....

Don't you mean the friendly conflict between north and south?   I mean if Dollywood says it is so, then it is so!

[TV Anonymous]

2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

IMO, there's a huge difference, in that Americans who opposed the wars in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq went to war anyway, because their country called.  Southerners who fought in the Civil War for the Confederacy resisted the call of their country--unlike many Southerners who served in the Union forces--and instead joined an armed rebellion, and chose to kill fellow citizens.  And that had to take some serious groupthink in an era without television, radio, internet, automobiles, mass transit, or other efficient means of bringing people and thoughts together.

My last comment, just to keep the discussion focused on the show. I could also argue that the Southerners might had the same sentiment as the Patriots during Revolutionary War. Be a rebel because of perceived oppression by the Central Government or to stay loyal to the Crown / Union? The major difference is that the Patriots won and the Rebels lost; and as everybody knows, history is written by the victors.

[Zanne]

8 hours ago, ganesh said:

I still don't get the "how much you cost" guy. He's saying his family didn't own slaves because they cost too much. But if they still fought in the civil war, then they were fighting for others to own slaves anyway. If they didn't own slaves and didn't fight, then waving the flag around is effectively meaningless. The logical convolutions are mind boggling. 

The logical continuation to the man's "Do you know how much a slave cost?!" argument is "If it wasn't for how expensive slaves were, my family totally would've had at least a dozen working on the farm!" Which, yeah, makes his point that the Civil War was not about slavery at all. *eyeroll*

Edited October 10, 2017 by Zanne

[JTM]

I think there's an argument to be made -- though SHEESH not best via "Do you know how much slaves COST??!"  -- for the notion of the Civil War having been fought/supported by people who just straight-up didn't want to be told what to do. By anyone, by governors, by Yankees. In the spirit of "Don't Tread On Me".

Which is not to deny AT ALL that what they didn't want to be told what to do ABOUT was slavery. Nor that the South that they wanted to preserve was overtly white-supremacist (as opposed to the more subtle North).

I don't think that argument is sufficient justification for Confederate monuments. But I do think it's probably where Confederate Santa was coming from, in that town meeting. And maybe even Dear Lord Shut Up Now guy too. What they value is totally steeped in racism -- and it'd be nice if they'd own that and step away from the Statue Worship -- but I suspect that at least on the surface, it's about valuing that Don't Tread On Me thing just as much. Because that's a real live thing. And it has emotional resonance. And fwiw, I think it's also a big part of why y'all have the President you have.

So rather than just drawing a stark line between Confederate Monuments Racist and No Confederate Monuments Not Racist, I think it'd be better in the long run if that nuance were admitted into the discussion. I suspect there's a lot of Southern Pride out there that really isn't about overt racism. But it's not likely to be swayed by 'enemies of the state' arguments either.

[ganesh]

I don't think their don't tread on me argument holds up. There weren't Northern soldiers quartered in the south. Southern citizens had equal representation in the government. They were the ones who made the first move and seceded. In fact, Lincoln doesn't even mention slavery until 3 years in. 

So the guy screeching on the show about his heritage or whatever is just wrong. He's fantasizing about a past that didn't exist. 

[Irlandesa]

7 hours ago, meowmommy said:

That's what confounded me.  The war for slavery was fought by thousands of poor Southerners who never owned a slave--so they had to have been effectively manipulated into thinking there was another reason.  So it was not just the cause, it was The Glorious Cause. 

While I'm sure part of it was the original "states rights" argument (which I believe was motivated to be created to preserve slave states), there's also the argument to be made that people who didn't own slaves still might have dreamed of having enough money to own slaves one day.  It's like people who will never make over $250K acting like a raise in tax rates among that group is a personal affront.  Even those who couldn't afford to own slaves outright had opportunities to rent them with the money going to the slave owners. And so they fought.

Edited October 10, 2017 by Irlandesa

[JTM]

5 hours ago, ganesh said:

I don't think their don't tread on me argument holds up. There weren't Northern soldiers quartered in the south. Southern citizens had equal representation in the government. They were the ones who made the first move and seceded. In fact, Lincoln doesn't even mention slavery until 3 years in. 

So the guy screeching on the show about his heritage or whatever is just wrong. He's fantasizing about a past that didn't exist. 

But it's that fantasy that I'm saying has resonance for people. Of course it was a delusion -- as John pointed out, the only 'treading' was the battle over whether slavery would be extended in new western states. And of course it was wrong, because slavery. And of course the 'heritage' apart from institutionalized white-supremacy didn't exist -- and of course the guy whose family worked their own farm would probably have dreamed about a glorious future of owning slaves.

But 'don't tread on me' has resonance for people. About 50% of your population, give or take, so it would appear. And I don't think that divide is materially assisted by starkly identifying it with overt racism and simply dismissing it outright. All that does is feed the beast and create an even starker divide.

[attica]

10 hours ago, JTM said:

people who just straight-up didn't want to be told what to do. By anyone, by governors, by Yankees.

Or, you know, by the white overseers who were whipping them. If you're including black folks in your "People". Which I don't sense is the case. Ownership of humans cannot be defended by this argument.

[ganesh]

10 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

It's like people who will never make over $250K acting like a raise in tax rates among that group is a personal affront.  Even those who couldn't afford to own slaves outright had opportunities to rent them with the money going to the slave owners. And so they fought.

So butthurt racist white dudes who think society owed them something screwed it up for everyone else? Huh. That sounds so familiar, I just can't place it. 

It's almost like the guy who said his family couldn't afford slaves was more mad about the actual cost. 

[JTM]

55 minutes ago, attica said:

Or, you know, by the white overseers who were whipping them. If you're including black folks in your "People". Which I don't sense is the case. Ownership of humans cannot be defended by this argument.

Of course it can't. Nor am I including ANY folks in this 'people' who aren't those who are getting all worked up about their 'southern heritage'. All I'm saying is that the great divide that was already great and is only getting greater -- and also got you the current President -- is unlikely to be even minimally bridged by any stark characterization of Confederate Santa and his fellow Confederates as simply racist, wrong, and unredeemable.

And that a more helpful approach would be to acknowledge the appeal and the emotional resonance of 'don't tread on me' for many Americans. As a way of opening conversation. Instead of shutting conversation down and retrenching the un-useful and destructively American go-to paradigm of good/evil and right/wrong. By simply dismissing 50% of your population as unredeemably racist and/or deplorable.

I think the statues need to come down. I think John presented the obvious case for why the statues need to come down. I just don't think it's necessarily the most CONSTRUCTIVE case to make, in the current American climate. I think that there are better ways to make the case, that don't simply widen the divide with the easy and obvious sneer.

[TV Anonymous]

3 hours ago, attica said:

Or, you know, by the white overseers who were whipping them. If you're including black folks in your "People". Which I don't sense is the case. Ownership of humans cannot be defended by this argument.

But you are using the morality of today to see them. For the people who condoned slavery, slaves were not fully human. And therefore they were not people, just like mules and horses were not people.

[Hanahope]

I loved that Anderson Cooper automatically believed that his ancestor was a bad guy if slaves killed him.  Larry David?  Maybe laugh less and be more thoughtful about your ancestors owning slaves.

If nothing else about the controversy over the confederate statutes, at least more people know these days that those statutes went up long after the civil war was done and were put up to intimidate black people.  Yup, pull'em down.

when John got to Florida, I was almost expecting a Tom Petty statute.

[Enigma X]

1 hour ago, TV Anonymous said:

But you are using the morality of today to see them. For the people who condoned slavery, slaves were not fully human. And therefore they were not people, just like mules and horses were not people.

I tend not  to get too involved in slavery discussions because of the excuses placed on "a different time and place." I descend from Africans who were enslaved and Europeans who enslaved them (as most AA are).

I am pretty sure those, even back then, who justified slavery were well aware that Africans were humans that simply had darker skin than they did. If not, why do  most of us carry European blood? 

[iMonrey]

Quote

when John got to Florida, I was almost expecting a Tom Petty statute.

Petty was the final image in the opening title sequence this week.

[Annber03]

Oh, wow, I completely missed that! 

Aw. That's neat. 

[Hanahope]

3 hours ago, iMonrey said:

Petty was the final image in the opening title sequence this week.

Heartus Breakus 

[Victor the Crab]

When Ollie managed to combine Tom Hanks with Adolph Hitler, he came up with "Adolph Hankler". Which was the name of an episode on the last season of The Larry Sanders Show, where Ollie's old TDS boss Jon was playing himself filling in for Larry (Garry Shandling) and he made Hank Kingsley (Jeffrey Tambor) dress up like Hitler and be called Adolf Hankler and say all kinds of horrible, anti Semitic shit from a podium. Was that something that crossed the writers minds when they were putting together the show?

Oh, and Larry David, curb YOUR enthusiasm please.