S04.E02: Do No Harm

[Athena]

Quote

Claire and Jamie visit his Aunt Jocasta at her plantation, River Run; when tragedy strikes at the plantation, Jamie and Claire find themselves caught between what's right and the law of the land.

Reminder: This is the No Book Talk topic. No discussion of the books is allowed including saying "in the books..." Book readers are discouraged from posting and liking in this thread. Posts may be removed without warning.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Oh, Ian. Your dog reeks of skunk so you decide that the best thing to do is BRING IT IN THE HOUSE?

On a related note, I had a recent skunk encounter (the young ones often freak out over nothing and spray so at least once a year, our yard stinks of skunk) so I found a deskunking recipe created by a chemist that neutralizes the odor (contrary to popular belief, tomato juice doesn't actually remove the smell):
 

Quote

In a bowl or open container, combine:
1 quart of 3% hydrogen peroxide (use a fresh bottle)
1/4 cup of baking soda aka sodium bicarbonate (NOT baking powder)
1-2 teaspoons of liquid dish soap

The solution should be used immediately because oxygen released from the hydrogen peroxide may cause a closed container to explode. Avoid splashing it into the eyes or mouth. Allow the solution to remain on hair for five minutes before rinsing with water. Do not use on clothing as it may discolor the fabric.

I love that within less than a day after arriving at Auntie Jocasta's house, Claire and Jamie were already offending people left and right.

Every time someone said "River Run," I kept expecting to see Jaime Lannister watching Brienne and Podrick silently rowing away.

[BitterApple]

I'm half expecting Tobias Menzies to make an appearance as Edmure Tully. 

I'm also starting to think Jamie and Claire just need to sail off to Antarctica and never be around people again. They don't seem to do much but bring misery and suffering everywhere they go. 

Edited November 12, 2018 by BitterApple

[annlaw78]

I fell asleep during last week’s ep and didn’t feel compelled to re-watch, and I stopped watching this one. I’m disappointed that we’re back to Claire-getting-threatened, Jamie-getting-beaten, general torture porn from seasons past. Despite the purported stakes, Claire doesn’t mind mouthing off at/offending their only ally/family on the continent.  Lather, rinse, repeat, but this time in “North Carolina.”  

 

Also, Jamie’s bangs are terribles. 

[mledawn]

Well, that was upsetting!!! Ugh, I didn't need to see Rufus hanged, even if he was already dead. Jeez Louise.
I'm super annoyed at Claire. She knows history, she knows what happened to the slaves and how long things took to change. So risking everyone's life to cut time off history is worth it? I don't understand why she thinks she can take on an entire region of people in a week. I guess that's just Claire...

Young Ian letting the dog in the house was so ridiculous. My dog took a direct hit from a skunk and it was HORRIBLE. We learned about the hydrogen peroxide but we certainly didn't have enough in the house to bathe her. Our house smelled low key of skunk for literal years. SO HORRIBLE. 

I do love how Young Ian is empathetic to the marginalised people, equating the Highlanders to the aboriginal people, and being disgusted with people as property. Atta way, Young Ian.

[qtpye]

Can anyone explain to me why the hell  Claire would think it is a good idea to settle in what will be the American South? She knew those economies were based on the horrors of slavery.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

When Claire saw Ulysses lingering outside the dining room and he warned her that she was doing more harm than good, I thought he was going to add to the list of many things she'd done that having a male slave brought up to her bedroom was scandalous and would be further grounds for him to be killed.

[hertolo]

Yes, Claire seem to be modernised to 2018-sensibilities compared to earlier seasons, not even 1960ies ones. I mean the absolute shock of Claire at seeing the Slaves, how long has she been back to the US mainland now? She should have had ample time of contemplating this world on all those slow travels around. And Jaime, how has Claire turned his sensibilities of the time so throughly? At least he should have known what you can do without bringing his aunt into peril herself.

I didn‘t know how hard it was to free a slave. I did know that they wouldn‘t be as free since they would have to convince people constantly that they are not a slave. Nice callback though with that explanation to the previous episode and the Riverboat Former Slave who saved his masters life. Speaking of which, they quite quickly dispensed with their colleague dying during that raid (Do I remember that correctly?). I imagined them to go after the robbers or anything, but I guess that is for later in the season?

I do like that this show absolutely shows us a „global“ history over the seasons as we often think of history in timelines locked in one place. The rural real Scotland of the first seasons and these slave plantations: (practically) the same time. That‘s very valuable and kind of really up to date from current historical research. Very valuable to let that hit home with entertainment viewers. :)

I also like that this is a real adult show. There are no antics, it takes its time and teaches us. The plot isn‘t as foreground as in most other contemporary tv shows. It‘s more like a book in that way. And that is good.

Also i now need to go look up whether Riverrun was named after the Tully seat in A Song of Ice and Fire/GoT, the books would have been written around the same time, I think.

[BitterApple]

I was shocked as well to learn it was such a complicated process to free a slave. I thought the owner just had to have a document notarized or something.

Claire's been in the Colonies for four months, so yes, you'd think she'd know the lay of the land at this point. Her heart is in the right place, but the way she goes about everything is completely wrong. 

Jamie's wig? I just want to rip it off his head, stomp on it a thousand times and set it ablaze so I never have to see it again.

I'm also curious about them heading West. If Claire is so self-righteous over the British stealing the Indians land, why are they not boarding the first ship back to Scotland? Won't they be doing the very thing they claim to be against? 

[kwnyc]

1 hour ago, BitterApple said:

I was shocked as well to learn it was such a complicated process to free a slave. I thought the owner just had to have a document notarized or something.

 

The point was to make it next to impossible so people wouldn't get ideas about freeing/paying their slaves, whose labor was the backbone of the economy, and whose trade had impact on many economies. (For the musical theater buffs among us, remember "Molasses to Run to Slaves" from 1776, where one of the major plot points was the South refusing to sign if slavery were abolished.) And when the Constitution is written...just a couple of decades from the time of this episode, the compromises include making slaves count as 3/5 of a human being: they didn't vote, but they counted in terms of the numbers used to compose the House of Representatives, which gave the Southern states, which had fewer people than many of the Northern states, an edge in the House.

And for more musical theater history, in "Hamilton" from Cabinet Battle #1:
"A civics lesson from a slaver, hey neighbor
Your debts are paid 'cause you don’t pay for labor
We plant seeds in the South. We create.Yeah, keep ranting
We know who’s really doing the planting"*

*Hamilton sang this in the show, but his household also owned a couple of slaves.

Jocasta said a lot of the things that the genteel white folks hgave said for hundreds of years (and some are still saying): that the slaves were treated well, they were like family, etc.

Slavery was still legal in England (and the colonies were still part of England.) But England started to abolish the slave trade in 1807, and it was abolished throughout the British Empire in 1833. the US abolished the IMPORTATION of slaves in 1808, but by that time, there were many thousands of slaves in the country.) 

After all that, if I were Claire and Jamie, I'd have headed back to Scotland, or at least headed North to hang out with the Quakers. After all, Ben Franklin had a print shop!

[monakane]

On 11/11/2018 at 10:43 AM, BitterApple said:

I'm half expecting Tobias Menzies to make an appearance as Edmure Tully. 

Thanks for putting that together.  I would love to see an appearance by Tobias Menzies (maybe a flashback).

[taanja]

On 11/11/2018 at 7:40 AM, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Every time someone said "River Run," I kept expecting to see Jaime Lannister watching Brienne and Podrick silently rowing away.

OMG!!! Haha! I thought I was the only one!!!! I also kept thinking -- wait! what show am I watching!

Edited November 12, 2018 by taanja
to add words

[BitterApple]

I'd love to see Brienne kick Bonnet's ass when he tries to rob her on the river. I'd be totally cool with a crossover scene.

[Fen Tiger]

I don't get what the writers thought they were doing in this episode. As stated by others above, Claire was more than aware of what slavery in the American South was like and that her actions would cause issues for their family. 

[Cdh20]

My takeaway was that Claire knew about slavery but haven’t faced living with it until that moment! And then she acted just like she always has- doing first, thinking later.

[Nidratime]

Quote

My takeaway was that Claire knew about slavery but haven’t faced living with it until that moment! And then she acted just like she always has- doing first, thinking later.

I agree. I know that if I were transported to a previous time and had to face injustices that we have currently almost resolved -- obviously there are issues today still related back to slavery -- that intellectually I would know that there wasn't much I could do, alone, to change things over night, but I wouldn't be able to help myself viscerally from speaking out. I can't even shut my face, in the here and now, when I know that speaking out might bite me in the butt!

[Mrs. Hanson]

14 hours ago, Fen Tiger said:

I don't get what the writers thought they were doing in this episode. As stated by others above, Claire was more than aware of what slavery in the American South was like and that her actions would cause issues for their family. 

I agree.   I thought "Well Claire you ARE living in the south in what, the 1770's?  You can't be surprised."  They could have/should have headed north if this was gonna bother them so much.   Poor Rufus - and that was  pretty sanitized version of how slaves were treated.  I did find it jarring when the lady of the manor said "I bought them in a lot to keep them together." - I thought wow, just wow.

[Netfoot]

1 hour ago, Mrs. Hanson said:

I did find it jarring when the lady of the manor said "I bought them in a lot to keep them together." - I thought wow, just wow.

The latifundia slaves of ancient Rome were bought and sold by the hundred.  They had no names or individual identities and were acquired, deployed, utilized and disposed of in batches of 100.

[BusyOctober]

I think I’m starting to hate-watch this show, and I am sad about that.  Like every post above, I just don’t get why Claire keeps insisting on judging everyone & everything in the eighteenth century by her twentieth century ideals and experiences.  She should be using her knowledge of history to avoid certain things, and to capitalize on others. One person, especially a woman, is not going to force the Emancipation Proclamation a hundred years sooner just because she is morally outraged. Claire (and Jamie’s by association) sensibilities in general will never match up to the world they are operating in now.  Telling North Carolinian planters (who have been established and economically thriving for a few generations) that you (a foreign new comer with no knowledge of the laws or culture)plan to free your slaves and pay them a living wage in the 1760’s is not going to get you a positive reaction. 

As a couple they are constantly warning each other not to get in trouble, don’t antagonize the locals, yadda yadda.  Then in the next scenes; Jamie’s all, “ ooh! a sleeping bear! Imma goin’ ta poke it, jus a wee bit!”  Meanwhile, Claire is gathering HERbs near by, “Do I hear buzzing? I could use some honey for my healing!  Oh! Here’s a big stick to swat down the hive!” These two are supposed to be smart, but they are the most socially stupid people!  

I know there is no path to the Pacific yet in their time line, but if I were Claire, I’d high tail it to what will be Sacramento with some shovels and start planning for gold!  She and Jamie could be millionaires.  Bonus, no moral compass upset having to deal with slavery, American Revolution, screwing up the lives of various friends.  

I’m also sick of Claire being attacked and almost raped/killed by nay man she runs into.  At least this episode skipped that scene.

[Cdh20]

I am surprised that Claire always has a bottle of that stuff to kill people with on hand...

[MV713]

2 hours ago, Cdh20 said:

I am surprised that Claire always has a bottle of that stuff to kill people with on hand...

Looks like its empty now!

[Mrs. Hanson]

4 hours ago, BusyOctober said:

As a couple they are constantly warning each other not to get in trouble, don’t antagonize the locals, yadda yadda.  Then in the next scenes; Jamie’s all, “ ooh! a sleeping bear! Imma goin’ ta poke it, jus a wee bit!”  Meanwhile, Claire is gathering HERbs near by, “Do I hear buzzing? I could use some honey for my healing!  Oh! Here’s a big stick to swat down the hive!” These two are supposed to be smart, but they are the most socially stupid people!  

I agree and as much as I love this show, I kinda hope we are near the end.  Claire gets in trouble, Jamie has to find her.  We have to listen to Claire yell for Jamie in the woods or from a boat.

And Wee Ian, why did you bring a stinky dog into the house?

[BitterApple]

On 11/13/2018 at 9:40 AM, BusyOctober said:

I think I’m starting to hate-watch this show, and I am sad about that.  Like every post above, I just don’t get why Claire keeps insisting on judging everyone & everything in the eighteenth century by her twentieth century ideals and experiences.  She should be using her knowledge of history to avoid certain things, and to capitalize on others. 

Yessss!!!!! She knows history, so why not use that to her advantage? Play the game, don't ruffle feathers and formulate a plan to help as many as you can. Claire is so annoying with the way she rampages through these issues and then gets outraged when a person 200 years in the past doesn't see her point of view. 

I don't blame Claire for not wanting to stay on the Plantation, because no matter how "benevolent" you are, at the end of the day owning people is owning people, but does she really have to create a giant clusterfuck everywhere she goes?

Spoiler

I'm actually looking forward to Brianna next week, and I never thought I'd say that.

Edited November 14, 2018 by Athena
added spoiler tag

[Mrs. Hanson]

Spoiler

 

On 11/13/2018 at 1:50 PM, BitterApple said:

I'm actually looking forward to Brianna next week, and I never thought I'd say that.

Me too - I thought I saw on a promo

Spoiler

Brianna coming through the stones.

but I am not sure, but I wrapped it in spoilers to be sure.

 

Edited November 14, 2018 by Athena
added spoiler tag

[Cdh20]

On ‎11‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 9:04 PM, annlaw78 said:

I fell asleep during last week’s ep and didn’t feel compelled to re-watch, and I stopped watching this one. I’m disappointed that we’re back to Claire-getting-threatened, Jamie-getting-beaten, general torture porn from seasons past. Despite the purported stakes, Claire doesn’t mind mouthing off at/offending their only ally/family on the continent.  Lather, rinse, repeat, but this time in “North Carolina.”  

 

 

I am hoping by NOT reading the book (ahead of the show) that we will be in for some surprises???

[terrymct]

I wish they'd get back to the formula of the first season.   Find an interesting place/time and stay there for a while.  Season one was good because we were learning about life within the clan system and at the castle.  We got to care about the clan people.  Since they've left the Highlands, it's been a tour at breakneck speed and you don't get to know any character well.   Jamie and Clare are honestly among the least interesting characters in the show.  

[Cdh20]

2 hours ago, terrymct said:

I wish they'd get back to the formula of the first season.   Find an interesting place/time and stay there for a while.  Season one was good because we were learning about life within the clan system and at the castle.  We got to care about the clan people.  Since they've left the Highlands, it's been a tour at breakneck speed and you don't get to know any character well.   Jamie and Clare are honestly among the least interesting characters in the show.  

I  can`t say I feel the same way as you. When I think back (to a year ago when I discovered the show) I struggled to get through the first 5 episodes of season 1, & only became invested after The Wedding, so if I didn't love Jamie & Claire I wouldn`t keep watching.

I am not spoiled except for interviews prior to this season, but I think they are going to put down roots soon in South Carolina.

I do miss many of the characters from season 1& 2 now after rewatching a few more times, even BJR, he was a villain worth hating!

[terrymct]

7 minutes ago, Cdh20 said:

I  can`t say I feel the same way as you. When I think back (to a year ago when I discovered the show) I struggled to get through the first 5 episodes of season 1, & only became invested after The Wedding, so if I didn't love Jamie & Claire I wouldn`t keep watching.

I am not spoiled except for interviews prior to this season, but I think they are going to put down roots soon in South Carolina.

I do miss many of the characters from season 1& 2 now after rewatching a few more times, even BJR, he was a villain worth hating!

For me, Jamie and Claire are romance novel are architype leading characters.    Other characters we've seen, primarily the people back in the Highlands had more depth to them and a mix of good and bad that made them more interesting.   Black Jack's character never made sense.  Why did he hate Jamie and Claire so much, which at the same time wanted to schtupp them both so readily?  He was pure evil without real motivation.   That's boring.

I think someone mentioned it in an earlier comment, but since Claire is anti-slavery and already knows generally about the colonies and the coming revolution she really shouldn't want to settle in the Carolinas.  Why not catch a boat up to Philadelphia or Boston?  Either of those cities would be fascinating places to be and no slavery.

I miss the day to day people from the Highlands.  Seeing that region in the years the clan system was broken would have been interesting, but would have required more research and care on the part of the author/writers than a rapid romp through a series of locations.

[ruby24]

Actually there was slavery in the north at this time too. People forget that but northern states outlawed slavery at different times in the late 1700s, and it was ended in every northern state in 1804. But rich people would own house slaves occasionally too- the northern economy just wasn't based on it, so there was much less of it.

But in general, yeah they would see less of it if they were to live up there. Or in Canada.

[Cdh20]

Now I need a history lesson from my own country-did Canadians ever have slaves? 

17 minutes ago, terrymct said:

For me, Jamie and Claire are romance novel are architype leading characters.    Other characters we've seen, primarily the people back in the Highlands had more depth to them and a mix of good and bad that made them more interesting.   Black Jack's character never made sense.  Why did he hate Jamie and Claire so much, which at the same time wanted to schtupp them both so readily?  He was pure evil without real motivation.   That's boring.

I think someone mentioned it in an earlier comment, but since Claire is anti-slavery and already knows generally about the colonies and the coming revolution she really shouldn't want to settle in the Carolinas.  Why not catch a boat up to Philadelphia or Boston?  Either of those cities would be fascinating places to be and no slavery.

I miss the day to day people from the Highlands.  Seeing that region in the years the clan system was broken would have been interesting, but would have required more research and care on the part of the author/writers than a rapid romp through a series of locations.

I did wonder what happened to all the Scots who survived Culloden. Who raised Hamish? What happened at Castle Leoch? But that's not what this story was about> we did see Lallybrock in a few of those years ( 301 & 308).

[terrymct]

12 minutes ago, Cdh20 said:

Now I need a history lesson from my own country-did Canadians ever have slaves? 

I did wonder what happened to all the Scots who survived Culloden. Who raised Hamish? What happened at Castle Leoch? But that's not what this story was about> we did see Lallybrock in a few of those years ( 301 & 308).

Did they end up planting lots of potatoes and avoiding starvation?   Who's helping Colum run Clan MacKenzie now that Dougal is dead and Jamie is off traipsing about the colonies?  Is there a clan left?

[Cdh20]

3 minutes ago, terrymct said:

Did they end up planting lots of potatoes and avoiding starvation?   Who's helping Colum run Clan MacKenzie now that Dougal is dead and Jamie is off traipsing about the colonies?  Is there a clan left?

Colum is dead too, so Leticia must be running things! I guess we should google up what actually happened in the Scottish highlands after Culloden??

That's what I did to find out that French, English & Native Canadians did indeed have slaves, but to a very small degree compared to the Southern US & Carribbean (because of the plantations).

[terrymct]

1 hour ago, Cdh20 said:

Colum is dead too, so Leticia must be running things! I guess we should google up what actually happened in the Scottish highlands after Culloden??

That's what I did to find out that French, English & Native Canadians did indeed have slaves, but to a very small degree compared to the Southern US & Carribbean (because of the plantations).

I remember the broad details of the history of the Highlands after Culloden from school and a trip to Scotland a couple years ago.  Not much of it was good, to be honest, but that would be perfect fodder for a historical romance.

[ganesh]

I like how it took all of 20 minutes into the episode for Claire to start stirring it up over slavery. 

I completely forgot Claire was doctor. That was a suspenseful scene. 

Edited November 15, 2018 by ganesh

[ganesh]

On 11/11/2018 at 11:15 PM, mledawn said:

She knows history, she knows what happened to the slaves and how long things took to change. So risking everyone's life to cut time off history is worth it?

They already tried to fight history and lose on top of that too. So they have experience there. 

I certainly would be disgusted too, but after the lawyer listed off the laws and cost, then it's like, well you need to revise your plan and play a longer game. Like, maybe start the underground railroad. 

I'm not seeing how throwing rocks through the windows is "lawful". 

On 11/11/2018 at 11:15 PM, mledawn said:

I do love how Young Ian is empathetic to the marginalised people, equating the Highlanders to the aboriginal people, and being disgusted with people as property. Atta way, Young Ian.

He wants a girlfriend. 

 

On 11/13/2018 at 9:40 AM, BusyOctober said:

I think I’m starting to hate-watch this show, and I am sad about that.  Like every post above, I just don’t get why Claire keeps insisting on judging everyone & everything in the eighteenth century by her twentieth century ideals and experiences

I wouldn't say I hate the show, but by now, it's clear (ha) the show doesn't necessarily have the character depth I was expecting based on S1. 

So, I'm wondering, what's the point? Claire isn't going to change and they're both going to make a mess of things. So they just spin their wheels till they get old? Could they bring slaves through the stones? Get filthy rich and heir it to Brianna? 

[BitterApple]

23 hours ago, terrymct said:

I wish they'd get back to the formula of the first season.   Find an interesting place/time and stay there for a while.  Season one was good because we were learning about life within the clan system and at the castle.  We got to care about the clan people.  Since they've left the Highlands, it's been a tour at breakneck speed and you don't get to know any character well.   Jamie and Clare are honestly among the least interesting characters in the show.  

I agree. I understand the book has to be condensed down, but the storyline isn't well developed. Hayes dies, they're over it five minutes later, they get robbed, Leslie dies and gets ten seconds of mourning and wham! we're at Riverrun where Jocasta announces she's leaving a massive estate to a nephew she hasn't seen in forty years. Claire has a two-day brush with slavery, pisses off the locals and now we're on to the mountains and clashes with the Indians. The writers are trying to touch on so many plot points that we're getting the Cliff Notes version of the book. It's an outline, with no context, nuance or depth. 

[Netfoot]

4 hours ago, ganesh said:

you need to revise your plan and play a longer game. Like, maybe start the underground railroad. 

Prezackly!

4 hours ago, ganesh said:

I'm not seeing how throwing rocks through the windows is "lawful". 

Ask the American Blackshirts.

[taanja]

On 11/13/2018 at 7:02 AM, Mrs. Hanson said:

I agree.   I thought "Well Claire you ARE living in the south in what, the 1770's?  You can't be surprised."  They could have/should have headed north if this was gonna bother them so much.   Poor Rufus - and that was  pretty sanitized version of how slaves were treated.  I did find it jarring when the lady of the manor said "I bought them in a lot to keep them together." - I thought wow, just wow.

The owning of human beings is justified in myriad ways by human beings doing the owning. Jocasta thinks of herself as a generous benevolent woman. Many slave owners did. It is that kind of mentality that allowed slavery to exist and flourish.

[ganesh]

Yes but you're not going to end it in one shot. 

[Mrs. Hanson]

3 hours ago, taanja said:

Jocasta thinks of herself as a generous benevolent woman.

Yep, she thinks that buy purchasing them in a "lot" and keeping them together, she is doing them a favor.  But you are still owning them, Jacosta.

[Cdh20]

5 hours ago, BitterApple said:

I agree. I understand the book has to be condensed down, but the storyline isn't well developed. Hayes dies, they're over it five minutes later, they get robbed, Leslie dies and gets ten seconds of mourning and wham! we're at Riverrun where Jocasta announces she's leaving a massive estate to a nephew she hasn't seen in forty years. Claire has a two-day brush with slavery, pisses off the locals and now we're on to the mountains and clashes with the Indians. The writers are trying to touch on so many plot points that we're getversion of the book ting the Cliff Notes . It's an outline, with no context, nuance or depth. 

I think the difference is that book one/season one was a shorter amount of time than most others. Claire fell threw the stones & 6 weeks later married Jamie & we saw that then in real time...but after that we can't always tell if an episode is a day, a week, or a month? 

[kwnyc]

20 hours ago, Cdh20 said:

I think the difference is that book one/season one was a shorter amount of time than most others.

True. When Claire fell through the stones, she knew that Culloden was going to happen in just a few years. That gave the first two seasons a contained narrative arc (that was beautifully done). After the Highlander clans were essentially destroyed, the author of an exceptionally popular series had to come up with some more narratives that were informed by the times. (That isn't book talk...that's discussion of the story arcs of the first 4 seasons!)

[taanja]

On 11/15/2018 at 2:17 PM, Mrs. Hanson said:

Yep, she thinks that buy purchasing them in a "lot" and keeping them together, she is doing them a favor.  But you are still owning them, Jacosta.

But people didn't think like that. Many (slave owners and those that supported the system) thought of themselves as good christians. Seriously. 

[qtpye]

On 11/16/2018 at 3:32 PM, taanja said:

But people didn't think like that. Many (slave owners and those that supported the system) thought of themselves as good christians. Seriously. 

 

On 11/15/2018 at 3:17 PM, Mrs. Hanson said:

Yep, she thinks that buy purchasing them in a "lot" and keeping them together, she is doing them a favor.  But you are still owning them, Jacosta.

Many people really thought they were rescuing the Negro from a savage existence by raising them up to serve the white man and introducing them to Jesus. It is disgusting the hypocrisy people like to enshroud themselves in order to justify brutality. Christianity said that no man could own another man, so the Negro had to be less than human in order to justify slavery. In Roman times the slaves were the spoils of war. They were treated horribly but there was not a Chrisitan hypocrisy of "we are rescuing them and we are fantastic Christians for doing so" mentality. I am a woman of color and so this episode really hit on some sensitive point for me.

[nara]

This episode was brutal, but a good reminder of how awful things really were for slaves.  The punishment was graphic, but sometimes you have to see things as they really are to appreciate them.

It was also a good reminder of how people can maintain a good self-image of themselves, while doing morally repugnant things.  Jocasta (love the name, BTW) seems to rely heavily on Ulysses and puts a great deal of trust in him.  She probably thinks he has a great life, and he probably does in comparison to other slaves.  However, he's still a slave.  Not that I want to see anything bad happen to him, but I really wonder what would happen if Ulysses were the one they wanted to punish...Would she stand up for him?

I thought it was interesting that, even in those times, Quakers were speaking out against slavery and other abolitionists existed too.  Also a great reminder of how the system was stacked against people who wanted to not own slaves.  I was not aware of those things.

The reckless gene seems to run in Jamie's family too.  Leaving Jamie an estate after reconnecting for a few days?  Seems quite foolish to me.

[ruby24]

Another thing about slavery is that it wasn't generally defended as a "positive good" until the antebellum era, pre-Civil War. For example, the slaveowning Founding Fathers didn't argue that slavery was an actual good thing, they described it as an evil system (of course they indulged in it anyway). But the attitude that slaves were "happy" in their position and it was actually good for them was a position that the South didn't start to stake out until the mid-1800s.

This seemed to be the mindset they wanted Jocasta to have about it, however. Probably because that's the attitude among Southern slaveowners that most people are familiar with historically, because of the Civil War era. I also noticed they stayed away from anyone using the n-word, even in the mob scene, which I thought was unrealistic. 

[Cdh20]

3 hours ago, ruby24 said:

 

 I also noticed they stayed away from anyone using the n-word, even in the mob scene, which I thought was unrealistic. 

I think the show does a good job most of the time dealing with historical atrocities in a sensitive way, or with today's political correctness, so I didn't expect that word.

[Cdh20]

5 hours ago, Pegasaurus said:

Just watching Season 4 Ep.2 for the first time.

I noticed that when Claire was stuck out in the thunder storm (her own stupid fault, btw) that when she went under the large fallen tree to take shelter, she unzipped  her boots in order to take them off.  Are these supposed to be the same boots she had when she went back to the 1700's again and that's why they had zippers?  How did she hang on to those 20th century shoes with all she'd been through?  

And nobody has noticed the zippers?  I think zippers were invented in the 1920's.  

I'm starting to get a little frustrated with all of Claire's pig-headedness so I'm resorting to picking on stuff like zippers.

They are indeed the boots she wore back, & they must have survived that hurricane!

[Camera One]

On 11/12/2018 at 1:03 AM, hertolo said:

I do like that this show absolutely shows us a „global“ history over the seasons as we often think of history in timelines locked in one place. The rural real Scotland of the first seasons and these slave plantations: (practically) the same time.

That is a major reason why I like this show too.  History of various places are often studied in isolation.  Although there are major problems with the rushed travelogue the show has become since Season 2 first half and Season 3 second half, I do find it interesting from a historical perspective.

It was educational to learn about how difficult it was to free slaves in the southern colonies at this time, and it was a reminder of the harsh punishments for slaves.  The problem was so systemic that there was no way Claire and Jaime alone could have been able to dismantle it.

Still, it was incredibly frustrating to watch Claire standing on her moral pedestal, refusing to see that her reckless actions could be endangering all the slaves at River Run.  You can't do good without resources, and during that time period, at least some slave owners were like the aunt and were at least trying not to be cruel.  Though I think the man who got his ear cut off was working for the aunt (I think) and he whipped Rufus, so some of them would still be mistreated.

At least this episode was much better than the previous one.

[gingerella]

Someone upthread said they were hate watching this show now, and while I'm not quite at 'hate', I'm 'disappointing watching' right now. I'm not sure where to begin so here goes, in no particular order...

One of the biggest problems with this Show since about midway through S03 is that it's a rushed journey of HEY WE'RE AT LALLYBROCH! HEY WE'RE ON A BOAT! HEY WE'RE AT SEA! HEY WE'RE SHIPWRECKED! HEY WE'RE ON ANOTHER SHIP! HEY WE'RE SHIPWRECKED AGAIN! HEY WE'RE IN AMERICA! HEY OUR FRIEND IS HANGED! HEY OUR OTHER FRIEND IS MURDERED! HEY WE'RE AT OUR AUNTIE'S PLANTATION! My neck is strained with all the to-ing and fro-ing. And that doesn't begin to cover the rinse and repeat cycle of: Nice scene without violence (domestic, travel or love scene), followed by DRAMA! VIOLENCE! RAPE/NEAR RAPE! DEATH! Rinse and repeat. It's gotten very old and quite frankly I'm shocked that Diana Gabaldon allowed or approved of turning her books into this bucket of shite. It's awful, I wonder if the books run off the rails too at midway through Book #3 and then #4. I have very low expectations for the rest of S04 at this point. Basically there is no down time to recover from the awful scenes, that's the problem.

All the references to Indians and Slaves was so degrading, and shameful. I guess because this is my country's shameful history that is still being played out today - which makes it all the more awful - it was very difficult to watch and I got no pleasure from this episode save the few moments of Young Ian and Rollo. The rest was a hard watch.

Things that made me go 'huh'?

Phaedra spoke with a wee Scotch burr, oh yes tha' lass did. Why??? No native accent at all, like Rufus. Seemed odd.

How on earth would Jamie Fraser know about growing RICE?!? Scotland is not a rice growing area, never has been, rice requires heat to grow. That was odd.

Random stuff:

At first I thought Ulysses was going to thank Claire for saving Rufus, so I was surprised when he chastised her and said the boy would be better of dead at this point. He was right, sadly.

I kept fearing that Bonnet would show up at River Run and run amok again. I know he'd not going anywhere because I hate him, so that means I'll have to deal with him for ages now.

I guess Young Ian is going to find himself a Native American gal as it appears he's quite interested in that option.

Guess who aint gonna be the lord of the River Run manor? Jamie, that's who! Buh bye...I reckon they'll be on the next river boat back to Wilmington ASAP.

Things I liked:

Aunt Jocasta mentioning Jenny. I miss Jenny and Ian, and I remember in the episode where Jamie and Claire return from France to Lallybroch, there is a mail call scene (when Jamie gets word that BPC faked his signature) and Jenny says there's a letter from Aunt Jocasta.

I loved Young Ian helping Auntie Claire with her surgery. He didn't hesitate and was able to help without freaking out, who'd a thunk it?

Shit I hated:

Dragging an already dead body. We didn't need to see it, did we?

Jocasta blind siding Jamie with being her successor. When Jamie said 'she's a MacKenzie', that never bodes well for Jamie, the MacKenzie side always brings trouble, or so it seems.

The English 'settlers' were just disgustingly awful. I know they were likely actually that bad or worse, but they made the Scottish Clans look like refined French intellectuals. What a deplorable lot.

This episode was painful and awful and made me feel sick. I cried at the end, I think because this country's history is so fucking ugly and we don't even know the half of it if we're not people of color.

Last but not least, Jamie's wig or hair piece or what the fuck ever that 'thing' is, HAS TO GO. I'm channeling Elaine Benis (tm Seinfeld) when I say, "I hate this thing, and here's what I'm doing with it!" *tosses into the river*

BTW, I find that I have less and less to say about these episodes compared to S01 & 02.