|
|
Post by lovemondays on Oct 19, 2014 14:53:22 GMT
I don't know if Glory Days will delve too much into William's past. With the larger-than-life characters of Bat Masterson, Butch Cassidy and Sundance I feel the episode will have more to do with jungle justice because that is their MO. I think the whole idea of jungle justice is going to be a recurring theme this season because is leads nicely into character development of both William and Thomas...growing in opposite directions from their norm and ending up closer together ideologically.
William will further have to see how jungle justice plays out with Julia and the suffragettes. She is passionate about how unfair the status quo is for women and we know it will take some interesting behaviour to get the powers that be, men, to shift things. Eleanor Roosevelt said "Women who behave rarely make history".
William's retrospective deserves to be done as its own episode played out against the backdrop of a murder. Perhaps it will be Glory Days, perhaps not. Can't wait.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fallenbelle on Oct 19, 2014 14:58:26 GMT
I don't know if Glory Days will delve too much into William's past. With the larger-than-life characters of Bat Masterson, Butch Cassidy and Sundance I feel the episode will have more to do with jungle justice because that is their MO. I think the whole idea of jungle justice is going to be a recurring theme this season because is leads nicely into character development of both William and Thomas...growing in opposite directions from their norm and ending up closer together ideologically. William will further have to see how jungle justice plays out with Julia and the suffragettes. She is passionate about how unfair the status quo is for women and we know it will take some interesting behaviour to get the powers that be, men, to shift things. Eleanor Roosevelt said "Women who behave rarely make history". William's retrospective deserves to be done as its own episode played out against the backdrop of a murder. Perhaps it will be Glory Days, perhaps not. Can't wait. I admit that I thought it might be Glory Days as in referring to his past, and maybe it will be. I'm curious to see how Julia will further the suffragette's cause-I hope she doesn't take a page from the Pankhursts, but it wouldn't surprise me. Interestingly enough, I do know women were more or less rewarded with the right to vote after WWI in the UK and the US as a result of their contributions in winning the war-and not throwing themselves in front of horses. I'm assuming it must be something similar for Canada as well. Edit: Apparently Julia (but not Emily) would have right the vote in 1902 according to wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women's_suffrage This was passed in 1884, and had property restrictions and was for widows only. But seeing as she's about to remarry, I'm guessing she'll lose it again. |
|
|
|
Post by lovemondays on Oct 19, 2014 15:18:13 GMT
I don't know if Glory Days will delve too much into William's past. With the larger-than-life characters of Bat Masterson, Butch Cassidy and Sundance I feel the episode will have more to do with jungle justice because that is their MO. I think the whole idea of jungle justice is going to be a recurring theme this season because is leads nicely into character development of both William and Thomas...growing in opposite directions from their norm and ending up closer together ideologically. William will further have to see how jungle justice plays out with Julia and the suffragettes. She is passionate about how unfair the status quo is for women and we know it will take some interesting behaviour to get the powers that be, men, to shift things. Eleanor Roosevelt said "Women who behave rarely make history". William's retrospective deserves to be done as its own episode played out against the backdrop of a murder. Perhaps it will be Glory Days, perhaps not. Can't wait. I admit that I thought it might be Glory Days as in referring to his past, and maybe it will be. I'm curious to see how Julia will further the suffragette's cause-I hope she doesn't take a page from the Pankhursts, but it wouldn't surprise me. Interestingly enough, I do know women were more or less rewarded with the right to vote after WWI as a result of their contributions in winning the war-and not throwing themselves in front of horses. I'm assuming it must be something similar for Canada as well. Edit: Apparently Julia (but not Emily) would have right the vote to in 1902 according to wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women's_suffrage This was passed in 1884, and had property restrictions and was for widows only. But seeing as she's about to remarry, I'm guessing she'll lose it again. And doesn't that just frost your big hairy left nut make you cringe at the unfairness. A widow has the right to vote because of inherited property but loses both if she remarries! ARRGH  . |
|
|
|
Post by Hodge on Oct 19, 2014 16:49:05 GMT
I wonder if this line demonstrates the shift to "jungle warfare" that seems to be a theme for this season (or at least I hope it is!). CC wrote in her newest fic a realization that William can no longer rely upon respect for the law and that he'd have to start packing, and it really resounded with me-the times are changing, and William is going to have to adapt, so at some point, things changed even north of the border (even though I love the line-golden!). Because if you watch the Murdoch Effect, George's BFF is his gun, and in the Republic of Doyle crossover episode I just watched with Bill Murdoch, William's descendant had no problems flashing his gun and shooting his lover. Just a random thought though-I have no idea to what degree Canadian law enforcement is armed-but it does make for a fascinating topic. Talbotrail and others thought that on the Waterfront was also referring to recent incidents of police violence in Canadian history. If I remember correctly, they were talking about the police response to the G-20 protests...? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_G-20_Toronto_summit_protestsSo I guess you're right - Canadians don't rely so much on their wits anymore. I had hoped they were showing up the U.S. on that. So much for the t-shirt.  I've never had a high regard for coppers ... goes back to when my husband was in university and his psychology professor did psych analysis for police recruits. The fact that these people carry guns scares me greatly at times, though I have to say shooting incidents in Canada are few and far between, they just kill people with tasers these days! Even in Britain some police carry weapons now, it must be a sign of the times. |
|
|
|
Post by lovemondays on Oct 19, 2014 17:13:06 GMT
Talbotrail and others thought that on the Waterfront was also referring to recent incidents of police violence in Canadian history. If I remember correctly, they were talking about the police response to the G-20 protests...? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_G-20_Toronto_summit_protestsSo I guess you're right - Canadians don't rely so much on their wits anymore. I had hoped they were showing up the U.S. on that. So much for the t-shirt. I've never had a high regard for coppers ... goes back to when my husband was in university and his psychology professor did psych analysis for police recruits. The fact that these people carry guns scares me greatly at times, though I have to say shooting incidents in Canada are few and far between, they just kill people with tasers these days! Even in Britain some police carry weapons now, it must be a sign of the times. It is a sign of the times. Criminals aren't afraid to shoot police any more so the cops have no choice but to respond in kind. Unfortunately this makes them uber-aggressive and inflexible when dealing with traffic stops and people with mental health issues. I think it's a huge problem for all police forces. They're reduced to the lowest common denominator. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Oct 19, 2014 18:42:02 GMT
I don't know if Glory Days will delve too much into William's past. With the larger-than-life characters of Bat Masterson, Butch Cassidy and Sundance I feel the episode will have more to do with jungle justice because that is their MO. I think the whole idea of jungle justice is going to be a recurring theme this season because is leads nicely into character development of both William and Thomas...growing in opposite directions from their norm and ending up closer together ideologically. William will further have to see how jungle justice plays out with Julia and the suffragettes. She is passionate about how unfair the status quo is for women and we know it will take some interesting behaviour to get the powers that be, men, to shift things. Eleanor Roosevelt said "Women who behave rarely make history". William's retrospective deserves to be done as its own episode played out against the backdrop of a murder. Perhaps it will be Glory Days, perhaps not. Can't wait. Jungle Justice or no, I think this is the episode where William brings justice on the big black horse. And people get thrown threw wooden walls. I'm going to have to take a look at the major books published in that era (besides The Jungle Book) to see if there were any other "rough" influences going on. I think Glory Days would have to be the opposite of Jungle Justice. That episode would have to show that MM is no longer in the days of the Wild, Wild West - it's now in the Modern Era where people can't just have shoot outs in the street. It's law and order time. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Oct 19, 2014 18:51:53 GMT
I admit that I thought it might be Glory Days as in referring to his past, and maybe it will be. I'm curious to see how Julia will further the suffragette's cause-I hope she doesn't take a page from the Pankhursts, but it wouldn't surprise me. Interestingly enough, I do know women were more or less rewarded with the right to vote after WWI in the UK and the US as a result of their contributions in winning the war-and not throwing themselves in front of horses. I'm assuming it must be something similar for Canada as well. Edit: Apparently Julia (but not Emily) would have right the vote in 1902 according to wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women's_suffrage This was passed in 1884, and had property restrictions and was for widows only. But seeing as she's about to remarry, I'm guessing she'll lose it again. 1917 - that's not far off! Britain has actually had a long tradition of allowing property-holding women a right to vote at the local level. For them the key to having a stake in the country has always vaguely had something to do with if you actually owned land, and widows were, de facto, heads of household. So their struggle for the franchise has really been about defining who is a full person rather than a "dependent" who might be swayed to vote by the interests of their "master". It's a shame Julia couldn't slip losing her right to vote into her banter with William! Parts of Ontario might not include Toronto, though. Maybe this was only for rural estates. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Oct 19, 2014 18:56:13 GMT
And doesn't that just frost your big hairy left nut make you cringe at the unfairness. A widow has the right to vote because of inherited property but loses both if she remarries! ARRGH . I studied this issue from an earlier British history perspective - and believe me it's studied to the minutest detail(!) - and the reasons behind it are more interesting and complicated than you would expect. But the fight has been on since the 17th century. |
|
|
|
Post by lovemondays on Oct 19, 2014 19:17:07 GMT
Jungle Justice or no, I think this is the episode where William brings justice on the big black horse. And people get thrown threw wooden walls. I'm going to have to take a look at the major books published in that era (besides The Jungle Book) to see if there were any other "rough" influences going on. I think Glory Days would have to be the opposite of Jungle Justice. That episode would have to show that MM is no longer in the days of the Wild, Wild West - it's now in the Modern Era where people can't just have shoot outs in the street. It's law and order time. I agree this is the black horse episode. You have made my point better than I did. William vs Bat Masterson, law and order vs jungle justice. The point is William's way is what is called for. The kicker that has been hinted at is whether or not William's way is still as rigid as it used to be. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Oct 19, 2014 19:25:12 GMT
I've never had a high regard for coppers ... goes back to when my husband was in university and his psychology professor did psych analysis for police recruits. The fact that these people carry guns scares me greatly at times, though I have to say shooting incidents in Canada are few and far between, they just kill people with tasers these days! Even in Britain some police carry weapons now, it must be a sign of the times. They are held in pretty low esteem in the U.S. right now. Awareness has been pretty dramatically raised about unjustified, racially-profiled shootings. Not to mention shooting disabled people and other "mistakes". A lot of protests are going on at the minute: I hope they don't get hijacked by some other "News Cycle". Sometimes I think ISIS and Ebola are actually being over-hyped just to try to distract the American people from the issue of police being armed with military-grade gear and acting on the basest of impulses. |
|
|
|
Post by lovemondays on Oct 19, 2014 19:32:04 GMT
I've never had a high regard for coppers ... goes back to when my husband was in university and his psychology professor did psych analysis for police recruits. The fact that these people carry guns scares me greatly at times, though I have to say shooting incidents in Canada are few and far between, they just kill people with tasers these days! Even in Britain some police carry weapons now, it must be a sign of the times. They are held in pretty low esteem in the U.S. right now. Awareness has been pretty dramatically raised about unjustified, racially-profiled shootings. Not to mention shooting disabled people and other "mistakes". A lot of protests are going on at the minute: I hope they don't get hijacked by some other "News Cycle". Sometimes I think ISIS and Ebola are actually being over-hyped just to try to distract the American people from the issue of police being armed with military-grade gear and acting on the basest of impulses. It seems to me that the press drives fear and fear drives politics particularly in the U.S. Our regular police forces aren't equipped with the high intensity stuff but the special response units sure are. Thank God because in the last year we've had a mentally ill teen shot by police on a streetcar and an elderly woman tasered. I shudder to think what could happen if the hyped up rank and file carried Uzi's or AK47's. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Oct 19, 2014 20:03:17 GMT
It is a sign of the times. Criminals aren't afraid to shoot police any more ..... They're reduced to the lowest common denominator. Cops need more defensive gear, and guns need to be licenses and off the street. It's tricky in the American context, because psychologically I think we all want to protect our right to uprising in another Revolution, should the need arise. And we wouldn't be able to resist the State if the State has the monopoly on violence. But how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals in the meantime? |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Oct 19, 2014 20:48:15 GMT
I agree this is the black horse episode. You have made my point better than I did. William vs Bat Masterson, law and order vs jungle justice. The point is William's way is what is called for. The kicker that has been hinted at is whether or not William's way is still as rigid as it used to be. The good news is this episode might be enough to veer William away from "jungle justice". Can't wait to see William ride up on a black horse! and sweep Julia up on it. |
|
|
|
Post by lovemondays on Oct 19, 2014 20:53:07 GMT
It is a sign of the times. Criminals aren't afraid to shoot police any more ..... They're reduced to the lowest common denominator. Cops need more defensive gear, and guns need to be licenses and off the street. It's tricky in the American context, because psychologically I think we all want to protect our right to uprising in another Revolution, should the need arise. And we wouldn't be able to resist the State if the State has the monopoly on violence. But how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals in the meantime? That is a sticky wicket to be sure and one that the NRA loves to ignore. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Oct 19, 2014 20:54:20 GMT
It seems to me that the press drives fear and fear drives politics particularly in the U.S. Our regular police forces aren't equipped with the high intensity stuff but the special response units sure are. Thank God because in the last year we've had a mentally ill teen shot by police on a streetcar and an elderly woman tasered. I shudder to think what could happen if the hyped up rank and file carried Uzi's or AK47's. The mistake in the US is Homeland Security started selling the police left over military equipment. There were actually fairs touring to exhibit the opportunities for enhanced gear to various police departments around the country. There was a fuss recently when our local mayor canceled the fair because it was seen as a business thing that brought in money. Then people blinked and looked around at the reality of police violence and all the protests going on and realized this was probably a sound decision. Anyway: timely topic to be covered by MM. I wonder if they will bring it up more this season. |
|
. 
