The History Podcast: Recent Episodes
Race4thePrize
A sometimes irreverent Podcast about History and other topics in the fields of Social Sciences such as Economics, Geography, Politics, Culture, etc. We love America's awesomeness and worthlessness.
Coming soon - Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis
Review Coming Soon - Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress
Review Coming Soon - Addicted to Outrage: How Thinking Like a Recovering Addict Can Heal the Country
Review Coming Soon - The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure
Review Coming Soon - 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos
Review Coming Soon - No Middle Name: The Complete Collected Jack Reacher Short Stories
Book Review Coming Soon - In Defense of a Liberal Education
Book Review Coming Soon - Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking
Review Coming soon - Addicted to Reform: A 12-Step Program to Rescue Public Education
Turning historical books into movies is down right dangerous. History nuts are bound to see the movie, and that is great for the box office returns, but not always great for us history nuts. Usually two camps form when those of us who love history see movie trailers for histo-flicks. One camp is book first. The other, movie first. Usually, I profess reading the book before seeing a movie, but there are some inherent risks with this approach. One risk is that the movie is better than the book (gasp!). The second is worst than the first; the movie takes a completely different direction than the book. Monuments Men is one of those movies. Get this straight, it was a fair movie (I will save my remarks for later), but for those us (meaning me) who took the book first route, it was a bit painful. First lets get a few (very few because I do not want to detract from the movie review) of the historical factors out of the way. First and foremost were the characters themselves. Most of the character were amalgamations of the actual people. One of the best though is Cate Blanchett's character Clarie Simone who is based on the real life Rose Valland. Valland play a critical role in the tracking and recovery of many priceless works of art stolen from Paris museums. As a whole Clarie Simone is a pretty accurate portrayal of Valland who is described as meek and mild enough to have never been suspected by the Germans as a spy. Blanchett nails this description in her role. The other redeeming aspect is that Simone and James Granger (played by Matt Damon) never have a romantic tryst I had feared they would from the trailers. Whether the real life Valland and James Rorimer (whom Damon's character is based) were actually romantic is not detailed in Robert M. Edsel's book, but I speculate it unlikely. The rest of the characters and story line is much too convoluted to detail, but the movie does capture the essence of the Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives Program. These men were dedicated to the preservation and recovery of the many works of art endangered by the war. One glaring misrepresentation that was of note was the fact that the characters in the movie acted as a team. In reality the men of the MFAA operated for the most part as individuals because there were so few to begin with and the territory necessary to cover was was vast. This understaffing made their role in the war effort that much more notable. Understandably this collaboration was needed to make the movie work, but it does steal from the herculean effort of the individual soldiers tasked with saving and restoring Europe's art. Now to the movie itself. As a whole I found it a little disjointed and the editing was just a little rusty. The central narrative thrived the length of the movie, but at times it failed to drive home the point. It is as if the movie never decides to fall off the cliff into being a full on thriller. I felt as though more of the history could would have helped. Members of the MFAA had to track down (by any means) and recover these works of art from some of the most unlikely of places. All the while in a war zone with little or no help from combat forces. Such work was laborious and time consuming. In the film, things tended to fall perfectly into place. To me, the film would have been bettered by fleshing out some of the details rather than glossing over them or tidying them up into perfect little packages. This would have a) made the movie more intense and b) helped to show the seriousness of the MFAA.From a production standpoint, though, this was a pretty good historical flick. With big budget, big named movies you never have to worry about the historical accuracy of things like uniforms and sets. One interesting element from the book that remained in the movie was the infamous Volkswagen that Frank Stokes (George Clooney) drove over Europe. This was a nice little feature that sneaked its way in. In addition to the production quality, Monuments Men was very well acted and directed. With big names like Clooney, Damon, John Goodman, Bill Murray and even Bob Balaban you are going to get a quality film. One element that I did think lacked was the comedic value. Trailers and pre-release press made this out to be a wacky comedy that bordered on zany. Several blurps of humor did liven Murray and Goodman, but overall I felt it was a little flat. Again, this might stem from the film never pushing home on the story being told. My bias towards the book should be pretty clear by now, but still I felt that Monuments Men was just fair. I enjoyed watching it, but had a hard time with a) not saying "That didn't happen that way" and b) not being a little disappointed in the failure to drive home the point of the movie. Couple that with the lack of comedy and I was left wanting a little bit more. As with other histo-flicks, I tend to judge them based on if I want to pick up a book and read more about the subject. With Monuments Men, I am glad I read the book first. Leaving the theater I was less than inspired to read up on the men of the Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives Program. Still it was is a well made movie, that tells a (albeit with a glossy finish) really interesting story
Since its a day to celebrate the Emerald Isle and it's patron Saint, we thought we would post up a near impossible Saint Patrick's Day History Quiz.
(We'll be back with more podcasts soon folks)
1) St. Patrick is also the patron saint of this U.S town?
a. New York
b. Cleveland
c. Chicago
d. New Haven
2) Which of the following is NOT a band hailing from Ireland?
a. Drop Kick Murphys
b. U2
c. The Dubliners
d. The Cranberries
3) What was it St. Patrick supposedly drove out of Ireland?
a. Snakes
b. Rats
c. Spiders
d. Rabbits
4) Where was St. Patrick originally from?
a. England
b. Scotland
c. Wales
d. France
5) What was the main building held during the 1916 Easter Rising?
a. The Irish Parliament Building in Dublin
b. The Train Depot in Dublin
c. The General Post Office in Dublin
d. The City Hall of Dublin
6) What was the official name of the Black and Tans?
a. The Royal Irish Constabulary
b. The Royal Irish Police Force
c. The Royal Irish Brigade
d. The Royal Irish Party
7) Which of the following was not a part of the 1916 Easter Rebellion
a. Sir Edward Carson
b. Éamonn Ceannt
c. Tom Clarke
d. Michael Collins
8) Which of the following is NOT a county of Northern Ireland?
a. Cork
b. Londonderry
c. Down
d. Tyrone
9) Where was Éamon de Valera born?
a. Londonderry
b. Berlin
c. New York
d. Dublin
10) This brewer signed a lease in 1759 at £45 per year for 9,000 years at St. James Gate in Dublin
a. Johnnie Walker
b. Arthur Guinness
c. Hugh Anderson
d. Henry Jameson
11) What Irish painter is know for the work Portrait of a Lady painted in 1831
a. Susanna Drury
b.Henry Brooke
c. Garret Murphy
d. John O'Keeffe
If you are anything like me, Nelson Mandela is sort of a blond spot in your historical knowledge. Well the entirety of Mandela's career is a blind spot. Sure...it is easy to see him as the white haired, leader of South Africa that most of us do, but how many of us know all that much about his early career?Mandela: Long Walk To Freedom takes you back to the early days of his career right through his election in 1994 as President of South Africa. This picture was well cast, directed, and produced.There seems to have been nothing spared in the way of authenticity to the time periods and places. More than anything though this movie is one of the first on Mandela that gives you a decent idea of the man; warts, and all. I think it is well suited for the classroom, or for simple enjoyment of a good story
Personally, biopics aren't as bad as many historians think. Memories of graduate school where professors harped constantly that you should not be watching movies based on history still haunt me at night. As far a Mandela: Long Walk To Freedom goes, they are wrong. I'll keep watching. Are their inaccuracies? I'm sure. I'm not a Mandela scholar, and my working knowledge of career is limited. To me the real question is does it get you to thinking about Mandela, and I say yes. Why bother watching a historical movie if you are not at least passingly interested in learning more about the subject? I would go a step further and say why watch one and not want to pick up a book about the subject afterward.This flick certainly should get you interested in Mandela's earlier career with the African National Congress, and should give you pause as to whether he was rightfully jailed or not. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter will be all I have to say to get you thinking.
For a movie that did not make the big screen (at least that I saw) this one is particular well made from a film standpoint. Idris Elba (Nelson Mandela) and Naomie Harris (Winnie Madikizela-Mandela) both cash in extremely well-played roles. Where other histo-pics of Mandela give lack-luster performances (think Morgan Freeman in Invictus without even a hint of a South African accent) here we get Mandela as vibrant young man, a struggling prisoner, and older wiser politician. Elba particular plays the role to the last degree. You get the mannerism, the accent, and the personality coming right at you throughout the movie. Harris' Winnie Mandela is just as powerful. Here is a women who literally took many beatings for supporting her husband and his ideals. Though out the movie, you get the idea that Harris herself would gladly have stepped in front of a moving train for Mandela which is the mark of a well acted role.
Besides the great acting, this movie was well produced for what is at best a middle level budget. As you well know, low budget movies often skimp on one element or another, but that does not seem to be the case here. The costuming was historically accurate from the pictures I have seen.You get the idea that some time was spent looking at what the characters were actually wearing at the time, and in some cases you see exact replicas of outfits worn in real life. The setting is realistic as well. You get the gritty, brightness of South Africa and the hard reality of Robins Island prison. Alex Heffes who scored the film did an excellent job in setting the tone for the film with its ups and down. Newspapers or TV footage from the time look real too. Nothing gets more under my skin than newspapers or film footage in histo-pics that just looks fake.
Overall I would have to rate Mandela: Long Walk To Freedom at an 7.5 out of 10. The film itself is well made for a low budget film that never hit the big screen. It leaves you thinking about Mandela and his place in history.Certainly you be inspired to read up more on one of the most influential characters of the 20th and 21st Century. As an added bonus, you wouldn't have a hard sale to make if you wanted to show this in you classroom
Any story that involves punching holes in the Jim Crow laws of the 1950's and 60's will always get my attention. Any story that involves sports and punching holes in the Jim Crow laws of the 1950's and 60's will doubly get my attention. The story of the famed "Secret Game' between the then North Carolina School for Negroes (now North Carolina Central University) and the Duke Medical School basketball teams caught my eye earlier today when researching some things for my classes. I knew right away this was something I wanted to learn more about and put here for all our faithful followers.
1944 was a very good year for the N.C.S.N team. Having lost only one game the team would not however, be playing in the N.I.T or NCAA tournaments at the end of the year. Neither tournaments allowed black college into their brackets. Down the road, Duke University was effectively shut down as it housed V-12 programs for both the Navy and Army. Most of the best basketball played on the the campus that year was between intramural teams, though Duke's varsity team did win the Southern Conference. Stacked with former college players, one of the better teams was that of the schools Medical College.
Sometime in early 1944 members of both squads had laid a wager as the best team in Durham while attending prayer meetings at Durham's YMCA. With the seasons winding down (due again to the segregated tournaments N.C.S.N's team would not be "dancing") the two squads picked Sunday March, 12 1944 to play a friendly game to settle the bet. N.C.S.N's Coach John B. McLendon (now a Hall of Famer who was then a 28 year old coach just making a name for himself), decided that since his squad was denied a postseason championship game, he would create his own. Orginally the game was set by McLendon for the N.C.S.N campus and would be played with an official game clock and referees.
At Duke, the proposal fell on stunned ears. Jack Burgess (who had been chased off a Durham city bus for voicing an opposing opinion of its segregated seating) wanted to play. Many of the Medical College team were intailly hesitant. Eventually pride took precident over fear. "We thought we could whup 'em," David Hubbell says. "So we decided to find out."
Sunday, March 12, dawned cold. Wisely McLendon had scheduled the game when Durham (then as now a church going town) would be in church. School administration administration had not been warned about the about the game; and when a reporter for Durham's black weekly newspaper The Carolina Times, found out, he agreed not to write anything. To insure the safety of the player and everyone else no spectators would be allowed.
Just before 11 A.M., the Duke team piled into a couple of borrowed cars. To keep from being noticed the Duke team pulled their jackets over their heads as they walked into the small brick gym. The game began with a mishaps on both ends of the court.
The N.C.S.N and Duke teams flubbed routine plays early on in the game. Easy shots caromed off the rims. Crisp passes were completed, to the opposing team. "On that particular morning, you didn't exactly need to play skins and shirts," one Duke player mentioned.
Give-and-gos, three-man weaves, and two-handed set shots off screens got the Duke team into a groove after their initial floundering. But the Eagles warmed up, too. Henry "Big Dog' Thomas knocked down four-footers, while George Parks, a towering Kentuckian, gathered rebound for N.C.S.N.
For most of the second half, McLendon's team was scoring on nearly every possession. Running one fast break after the next, they were skirting a wide-open style of play that predated the same style of basketball made popular in the 1970's.
By the end of the game, the scoreboard told the story: North Carolina School for Negroes 88, Duke Medical College 44.
At the end of regulation, the teams spilt their squads and played a second game. No score was kept during this game. One Duke player later told his family “we sure had fun and I especially had a good time, for most of the fellows playing with me were Southerners. . . . And when the evening was over, most of them had changed their views quite a lot.”
No one ever found out about the game. The Durham police never learned of the event. Both city's two daily newspapers missed out, and the black reporter kept his word. No scorecard exists, and as far as official basketball recordkeeping is concerned, the game never took place. At the end of the second game, the Duke players hid in the jackets to leave the gym and took the same winding route back to campus.
Three years before Jackie Robinson broke baseballs color barrier and was jeered by racist fans whereever he went, this game was play with amity. When black soldiers were being knifed to death in Durham for not complying with seating policies on buses, 5 white students drove on the a black campus and played basketball with and against an all black team. When taken in perspective, the "secret game" gains a certain magnitude. Looking back it makes you wonder what would have happened had the kept score.
As we have talked about, Netflix is on fire. I decided to check out Netflix’s documentary on Romney tonight and I am now more confused than I was when he was running.
Whether by design or with an agenda, the film starts out with several scenes with Romney talking about losing. The most striking is election night 2012. As it progresses aids makes short statements, Romney responds. More short statements, more short response. Then Romney asks the question "What do you say in a concession speech?" My first though was, "Who in their right damn mind didn't have one written at the start of the race?" With hindsight that is an easy comment, but even in 2012, everyone not living under a rock knew the outcome. Flashback to 2006. Yet another scene of questions and answers, this time with Romney's family. Romney goes around the family asking his family the pros and cons. Again, more questions as to whether he should run or not. Again, more talk of losing. But during the 2008 run, we see through the film a much more savvy candidate that is friendly, smart and borders on hokey. This, unbeknownst to me, was a family run campaign without a lot of outside help. There were no scenes of cronies coming in and out of the room. No party hacks pumping the candidate full of vitriol. Think IDES OF MARCH sans Philip Seymour Huffman, and Ryan Gosling. You almost end up liking the guy.
All the way through the 2012 race, it’s the same time. More of Romney being a good guy. He pick-ups his own trash. The Republican Presidential Nominee picking up his own trash!! He prays for the country!! He even thanks God for his parents. Good grief!!!! This guy is down right.....no damn likable!! It makes me wonder why the guy lost. Perhaps that is what the filmmakers wanted, but it worked. We get to see into the guy's life on a daily basis, and there doesn't seem to be a flaw. You just can't say anything bad about the guy.
I could go on about how good a guy Mitt Romney is portrayed in this film. You end up thinking "Why did this guy get beat?" It would be easy to go on too about how well this film was made. It's not your talking head interview type documentary, nor is it they type where the characters seem to be acting for the camera (which is problematic in documentaries). Overall I would recommend it to anyone interested in politics or campaigning. It lacks the gritty feel that a movie like IDES OF MARCH maintains, and hearkens back to THE CAMPAIGN with Robert Redford. It's well shot, and it tells a story that few people really saw during the election. Check it out if you have the Netflix.
Wow! Two books in a row turned in to the library on time.
I just finished (well finished listening) to this book and pleased for having done so. Beyond the obvious patriotic elements of the book there were a few things that stood out as a first-hand look at the Iraq War.
The first was the unit itself. The Fighting 69th had been a part of every major conflict since the Civil War until Vietnam. By the time of September 2001, the unit had transformed itself to a loose band of misfits who could barely muster for a parade, to a slightly less loose band of misfits who could barely muster for a parade. Security duty at West Point, and duty at Ground Zero moves the unit closer to its deployment, but not fully. From there they train in the states, and ship to Iraq. They serve with distinction the blood soaked town of Toji to Route Irish in Baghdad making a lasting mark on the Iraq War. By the end of their tour of duty, the 69th was ranked by Army Brass as one of the best in country. In a sense, the Fighting 69th is a feasible comparison to the Dirty Dozen of Hollywood. It provides a interesting perspective which is the book's hook. Flynn well documents the struggle of Colonel Jeff Slack to prepare the unit. This was particularly eye opening when you consider the lack of simple competency the unity processed before the war, to where it ended the war.
As well has the primary interest in the unit, the book offers a interesting look into the role of the Army National Guard in modern warfare. Rather then serving one weekend a month and two week out of the year, the book discusses well how the unit was used (and abused) by the U.S military. Far from fighting fires or prepping from a hurricane the unit spent in the neighborhood of three years on active duty training and service for the full time army. During this time was called on to preform duties that were well beyond its training or experience. Flynn skirts the idea that the unit has no business in the war, but points out mercilessly the challenges set in place by the "Big Army" on the National Guard. Such limitations are no more seen then when the unit arrives at the National Training Center for its pre-tour training. So bad was it's equipment that it was sent bad en mass and replaced. Such a complete retrofitting is almost unheard of in the military.
As a book, this was an easy read (our listen in my case) Normally when I listen to books, or read them for that matter, I can lose focus. This rarely happened. Flynn a big pictures summary laced with microcosmic looks at the troops, their stories, and loses. As you read the book, you are peppered with soldier sayings. This was a bit annoying at first but as the book goes on you seem to noticed them less. These are of course offset because Flynn served as such. Had it been some smoe off the streets, I would have probably stopped reading the book on this account.
Normally, I put books down I don't like. I made it through this one, and on time, so that shows you something. I would recommend this book if you are interested in military matters only. It's not an all encompassing story of the war. Political it is not. A straight up and down shoot'em up is all this book is, and it was better for having to tried too hard to be something else.
The History Podcast #36
Download Podcast - Snake Handling Snake Handler
In This History Podcast...
And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak in new tongues. The shall take up serpents; and they drink any deadly things, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover
(Mark 16:17,18)
With the recent death of Jamie Coots, we decided here at The History Podcast to look deeper into this obscure religious following. We touch on the roots, question why, jump to the Protest Reformation, and Mr. Jackson get's saved!!!....Well maybe not that last part, but it's not for a lack of trying by his coworker.
The History Podcast #35Download Podcast - McConaissance
In This History Podcast...
You know what I love about.....this History Podcast answers that as we cover the resurgent career of Matthew McConaughey. From his upstart roles in Dazed and Confused and The Newton Boys, to low points like Ghosts of Girlfriends Past, there have been some ups and downs. Roles in The Paperboy and Dallas Buyers Club have brought a deeper hue to McConaughey's career. We delve into the highs, lows, and downright dark turns. Mr. Lincoln even reveals a possible mancrush.
The Monuments Men: Allied Heroes, Nazi Thieves and the Greatest Treasure Hunt in History by Robert M. Edsel and Bret Witter
Always a fan of reading the book before the movie, I hurriedly read The Monuments Men recently. Honestly, it is one of the few books I have ever finished in the allotted time from the library
| | | |
At the risk of sounding like the movie trailer, the book tells the story of a group of men (officially designated the Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives Section) who's primary goal was to save the art work of Europe from the Nazis during World War Two. However, it is more complex than this. The primary job of the Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives Section (MFAA) was to locate and recover rather than save from falling bombs. Moreover, the people of Europe that helped these men are pulled front and center. Perhaps the most interesting aspect is the amount of resources spent by the Germans on art. A Master's Degree in Military Planning is not required to see the misapplication of resources might well have quickened the fall of the Third Reich What I found most interesting was the ways these men completed their mission. Hampered by poor supplies, the Monuments Men performed professionally through out the war, not only as the art curators, museum directors, and restorers they were, but as improvised detectives, makeshift engineers, and community relations officers. Working in harsh conditions such as Alpine salt mines, and bombed out church, these men moved massive statues and priceless paints under combat conditions. When needed, they restored works with what they had. Understaffed, often times the Monuments Men had to rely on local sources for intelligence. Due to the small size of the unit,one or two men were required to cover large swaths of Europe by themselves. MFAA Officer James Rorimer, seeking help from the museum community of Paris, found himself a major conduit of information from the French Resistance to top American commanders. Despite the love affair between Matt Damon and Cate Blanchett, you will see the seriousness of Rorimer's mission at the movies.
| | | Real Monuments Men |
One perk of reading the book, over just seeing the movie, are the primary documents that proceed each chapter. Many of these are German in origin, so the reader can grasp the story's scale. As hard as the Monument Men worked to locate, recover, and restore these priceless works, the Germans worked to collect and hide them. The volume of paperwork the Germans produced on the artwork alone would be enough to divert a squad of clerks for months. Over all The Monuments Men is well written and easy to read. Seeing the movie will not, I repeat not, do the book justice. If you are interested in out of the way history, military history, or art history, this is your book. If you're like me and get tired of the same old yawning stories of Patton, you would do well to read The Monuments Men.
| | | Robinson Won Rookie Of The Year in 1947 |
To be honest, I had my doubts about this movie. When I saw its impending release way back when, my first reaction was it would go one of two ways. One: yet another glorified rah-rah about someone was far but. Hollywood would wash it clean of any facts or blow out of proportion a few of the more tasty morsels. Two: An overly dramatic account of something that by nature was pretty dramatic. After watching it, I concluded that it was neither. Reviewing 42 might best be done by breaking it down into a couple of different areas. After all it is a film trying to big things.
BaseballBaseball really doesn't play a central role in 42. What is shown in a bit glossy and really never shows the game. The few scenes that include the game were pretty canned. One highlight was the pretty accurate portrayal of Robinson's flailing running style given by Chadwick Boseman. 42 lacks the grit of movies like *61 or Eight Men Out, but an accurate baseball movie is not required. More emphasis could have been given to Robinson's role on the diamond, but it is easy to forgive the movie for trying to show the whole picture.
Historically Accurate:Having read a couple of books on the subject, I was pretty satisfied by the details given throughout the movie. There were a few of the events of the 1947 season that I didn't think would make it into a movie that did.
One of which was the inclusion of the fact that no one knew Robinson was coming up to the Dodger, thus no lockers were ready for him. It was a home game, and Dodger equipment managers simply did not have time, or space to accommodate Robinson. In the movie this could have easily been blown way out of proportion, but it was not. The scene was simple. They stated the fact and moved on.
Another was Red Barber's reaction to Robinson's first at bat as a Dodger. Barber had had reservation about Robinson (not really shown at all) and had almost left the Dodgers broadcast when it was announced that there was a chance Robinson would be with the club. Trying not to make a big deal of the event, or the audible booing in Ebbets Field, Barber simply said "Robinson is definitely brunette” and went on with the call. I liked the fact that they added this to the film and it does include Barber in the whole picture. He was after all one of the greatest broadcasters of all times
On the flip side, the famed game against the Philadelphia Phillies in which Phillies Manager Ben Chapman openly yelled racial slurs at Robinson from the home dugouts was a must. While the scene did draw significant screen time, it was very accurate. Chapman did make an ass of himself, and was confronted by Ed Stanky during the game. What was said during the game by Chapman, Stanky or Robinson has been lost in history but I felt like movie did a good job with one of the defining moments of the '47 season.
| | | Robinson with Chapman |
Side note: Harrison Ford's Branch Rickey is dead on
Racial Elements: This is the crux of the movie, but it was not over the top. It would have been easy to over emphasis all of the terrible things that happened, but the main story would have been lost in doing so. Were there events? Absolutely. Were some of them very bad? Sure. Did the film dwell on even the worst? I did not think so. For that I am glad.
More than anything the movie showed Robinson overcoming the overt and subvert racism that he faced, and very tastefully. Rather than a light-switch type scene, you see the gradual changes. Overall whole racial aspect was done tastefully and not at all hokey.
Despite some minor flaws (cheesy baseball scenes, Pee Wee Reece's famed on field conference with Robinson was at home, and Leo Durocher's affair did not cost him his job), 42 is over all worthwhile. The movie is less about Robinson himself, and more about the people around him. Do not mistake, Robinson is still the start of the show, but those around the story are not shoved the to side. The mere mention of Lou Durocher, Pee Wee Reece, or even Ralph Branca shows the elements that supported Robinson as he made history.
| | | Happy Birthday Bob! |
In honor of Robert Nesta Marley’s birthday and the opening ceremonies for the Sochi Olympics tonight (in the US), I thought I might post a brief history of Jamaica’s sole contribution to world of arctic sports. Bobsledding. If you are a certain age, you are likely familiar with John Candy coaching to Doug E. Doug, Leon, and Rawle D. Lewis to Olympic…..defeat, but the team’s history has been marked by reasonable success.
The team was initially founded by American businessmen George Fitch (now mayor of Warrenton, Virginia) and William Maloney. Originally interested in Jamaica's push-cart culture, the two recognized that the nation’s sprinters would serve valuable speed in the bobsled’s push starts. The 1988 team finished dead last at the Calgary games, but gained attention as the game's underdogs story.
As the Sochi games are set to start today, the team has hit yet another obstacle in that their gear has yet to make it to Russia due to missed connections and bad weather
Hardly a powerhouse program, the Jamaicans have placed as high as 14th and bet the likes of the United States, Russia, Australia, France, and two sleds from Canada. Success has, however, found the two man teams. At the Park City games in 2002, Winston Watt (pilot) and Lascelles Brown (brakeman), set the Park City bobsled track record and the Olympic record for the push-start segment of the 2-man race at 4.78 seconds
Say what you will about the Jamaicans, or any other athlete from a warm-climate country, I for one respect their integrity and courage. They take their natural ability and apply it to a different purpose. The Jamaican bobsledders are not likely to medal in Sochi, but they have risen above cultural stereotypes, lack of funds, and Disney movies to make it to the Olympics. That is something to tip your hat to.
| | | The 1988 Team in Calgary |
| | | The 2014 Team At An Olympic Qualifier |
The History Podcast #31Download Podcast - NASCAR Vitriol
This history podcast defends and criticizes NASCAR. We discuss the main arguments put forward by NASCAR haters. We shoot down several of these complaints, but some gripes are legitimate. NASCAR is less than a month a way, maybe we can help you better understand your hatred. More podcasts about hatred coming soon. For the record, we love NASCAR because we are Americans.
The History Podcast #30Download Podcast - The History of FPS
This History Podcast documents the history of first person shooter video games. We take you through the timeline from Wolfenstein to Call of Duty. Consoles, PCs, and the mod community are major topics of conversation. Ever wanted to know why 13 year-olds do not sleep anymore and play shooting games all night? We'll let you know how that happened.
The History Podcast #29Download Podcast - Lack of Good War Films about Iraq and Afghanistan
This history podcast discusses the lack of quality war films about current wars. In particular, we question why there hasn't been any comedic or critical films produced about Iraq and Afghanistan. There are many films that are critical of past american wars, and darkly comedic too. Vietnam comes to mind. Today, it seems that no one in our country is allowed to say anything pejorative or critical of any american military action. Why has there been such a sea change in the last 20 years? Why can't MASH, Catch-22, Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, etc. be made today? Is this a part of a bigger problem?
2014 Academy Award SeriesThree hours of mayhem is Oscar worthy?
In short, yes. Some viewers have dismissed this film for its gratuitous nature and its glorification of crime. I understand this argument, and I get that an excessive use of the F-word can upset viewers. On the other hand, I do not know what audiences were expecting. This is a film by Martin Scorsese. Casino and Goodfellas are basically the same movie: criminals gallivant around for several hours and get into mishaps.Easily the best thing about this film is Leonardo DiCaprio's performance. He's all in as Jordan Belfort. He leaves nothing to the imagination. Although I enjoyed him in Django a little more, DiCaprio is still an Academy Award contender (He'll lose to McConaughey).The film is fun to watch, but it is a little too long. Jonah Hill turns in another good performance in a drama, but the real scene-stealer is Mathew McConaughey. In only a few minutes of screen time, McConaughey leaps off the screen and continues his ascension to the top of acting community. Overall, this film won't have the legs of Goodfellas, Raging Bull, or even The Departed. It is still a good film, but not an Oscar winner.disclaimer: I am biased. I would have enjoyed this film more, if it incorporated more economics and business. That's not the point of the film, and Scorsese reveals that early on. If you want economics, then watch margin Call or Too Big Too Fail.