Reminder: Texas Ranch House

jmcquown said:

Tara said:

On Mon, 1 May 2006 17:10:28 -0500, "jmcquown" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

One wonders if they will cook chili. Or beans. Or beans in chili.

The next in the the 'house' series produced by Public Broadcasting,
this time they drop a few families down in conditions similar to
1867 Texas. The series starts tonight on PBS and for the next four
nights. I'm betting someone bakes cornbread in cast iron. Maybe
some cornmeal griddle cakes (love those!). Maybe they'll even bake
biscuits over an open fire or bake some soda bread.

I love all the "house" shows. It's so interesting to learn and think
about the minutae of day to day life in historical times. I've been
obsessed with the Little House on the Prairie book series since I was
five years old.

The funny thing about 'The Frontier House' was that the teenagers said
specifically it wasn't "Little House on the Prairie". They didn't get to
wash their hair every day and they didn't have time to braid their hair.
Factually, if you braided your hair you kept it braided for about a week and
when you took it down to finally wash it in the creek, it was funky and
gunky. Homemade shampoo made with a little soaproot and some sweet smelling
herbs. Nice, but only once a week, if that 🙂

Jill

How about that good ol' concoction made from ashes, grease and water?

Sometimes known as lye.

Give them teeny-boppers some of that [censored] and watch 'em squirm!

--
TFM®

notbob said:

jmcquown said:

The funny thing about 'The Frontier House' was that the teenagers said
specifically it wasn't "Little House on the Prairie". They didn't get to
wash their hair every day and they didn't have time to braid their hair.

Most telling was at the end when the well off family went back to
their old lives and moved into their brand new mansion. Dad fell back
into his old routine of jet-setting around the world to make the big
bucks, the whole thing barely a blip on his radar. Mom was ecstatic
and locked herself into the laundry room to make love to her
washer/dryer, hysterically shrieking, "I'll cut the first person who
touches my appliances". But the real surprise was the kids who went
into a state of numb shock, finally realizing now that hanging out and
cruising the mall are a pointless bore. That was the best part of the
whole series.

Sadly, I didn't get to see the whole series.

I tuned in last night for the first time but was under the influence of
a vicious cold and I tapped out almost immediately.

I may have seen 3 minutes of it. :-(

What you say is the best part, was indeed. Whether I saw it or not.

--
TFM®

Goomba38 said:

Old Mother Ashby said:

You are not wrong. I read an interview with the producers of the UK
version of these shows, and they admitted that it was all in the
casting. Really helps if you can find a few square pegs for the round
holes you're filling. I watched a few episodes of The 1940's House,
which was supposedly set during WWII. Of course they were on rations.

Cooking on rations was a challenge, but millions managed it. However,
the lady of the house was someone who couldn't boil an egg, all her
real life cooking was heating frozen food up in the microwave. They
made her try making pastry, which resulted in much angst and the waste
of precious rationed food. They had rabbits but were too squeamish to
eat them, of course.

You might have missed the part where in her contemporary life she is a
vegetarian and never cooks meat. The kids eat meat outside of the home.
That is why the rabbits held no attraction for her.

My mother was a vegetarian at a time in my young life when I discovered
hunting.

She found no attraction in the dead rabbits I brought into her house,
but I ate them.

She raised a garden, I harvested the meat crop.

--
TFM®

ntantiques said:

I've been looking forward to this one since I actually know the Cooke
family. Lisa is a very serious history buff who enjoys a challenge &
was in 7th heaven taking that walk back in time with her family.
Although last night's episodes didn't really cover it, the family - as
well as the ranch hands - was given extensive coaching (including some
serious riding lessons) before they ever left CA.

When I spoke with her a couple of months ago, the participants hadn't
been given an opportunity to view the final product & she was really
hoping that the positive aspects of their experiences would be
reflected by the program's editors. She found it amusing, if not a bit
disappointing, that the production staff actively encouraged
"fireworks" between participants ("you won't believe what I heard
(blank) say about you"😉 and related that she and "the girl of all work"
had frustrated the efforts to start "trouble" between them from the
very beginning of their stay. Makes me wonder what was really behind
last night's drama between the foreman and the cook.

That is so unlike the impression I had from tonights episode? She
appeared to overstep her "role" as the wife. The way she ordered her
husband around was a bit too... 21st century?...that it seemed less than
accurate historically? But hell.. what do I know?
Mr Cooke appeared annoyingly "California passive" to me. I liked the
daughters very much.
Nacho the cook was a PITA, and I do wonder why a CIA grad who supposedly
is working in the food industry couldn't do better?
In fact, EVERYONE was whiny on tonights episode, so much so I am not
sure I'm interested in watching any more?

Loved 1940's house. They also lived with deprivation, but a much better
attitude. Of course I'd be a wreck with all that Texas heat myself.

Goomba38 said:

ntantiques said:

I've been looking forward to this one since I actually know the Cooke
family. Lisa is a very serious history buff who enjoys a challenge &
was in 7th heaven taking that walk back in time with her family.
Although last night's episodes didn't really cover it, the family - as
well as the ranch hands - was given extensive coaching (including some
serious riding lessons) before they ever left CA.

When I spoke with her a couple of months ago, the participants hadn't
been given an opportunity to view the final product & she was really
hoping that the positive aspects of their experiences would be
reflected by the program's editors. She found it amusing, if not a bit
disappointing, that the production staff actively encouraged
"fireworks" between participants ("you won't believe what I heard
(blank) say about you"😉 and related that she and "the girl of all work"
had frustrated the efforts to start "trouble" between them from the
very beginning of their stay. Makes me wonder what was really behind
last night's drama between the foreman and the cook.

That is so unlike the impression I had from tonights episode? She
appeared to overstep her "role" as the wife. The way she ordered her
husband around was a bit too... 21st century?...that it seemed less than
accurate historically? But hell.. what do I know?
Mr Cooke appeared annoyingly "California passive" to me. I liked the
daughters very much.
Nacho the cook was a PITA, and I do wonder why a CIA grad who supposedly
is working in the food industry couldn't do better?
In fact, EVERYONE was whiny on tonights episode, so much so I am not
sure I'm interested in watching any more?

Loved 1940's house. They also lived with deprivation, but a much better
attitude. Of course I'd be a wreck with all that Texas heat myself.

Like most successfully married couples I know, I always thought Bill &
Lisa Cooke had worked out a balance that works very well for them.
She's more outgoing and outspoken than he is - he's a subdued kind of
guy - but make no mistake, Bill has a very focused, well defined
personality - definitely not some New Age California wimp. The
Cooke's, as I've known them, are very much on the same page in most
areas and share very traditional values...and in their real life, it
was actually Bill who had the last word. They've worked hard on their
"Norman Rockwell American family" - hardly the norm for the 'burbs of
San Francisco - and have done a terrific job raising their 3 daughters.

Interesting how selective editing can skew our perceptions of people in
the name of entertainment. I'd sure hate to think how I'd have come
across if I'd been there!

Nancy T

notbob said:

Old Mother Ashby said:

Derrick's just finished his second read. Have you read the biography?

I'm halfway through the second read. Haven't read the bio, yet.

Quoted message said:

The whole "Patrick O'Bryan"....

You seem well versed on ol' Pat. So, why the "O'Bryon" spelling?
Another ruse?

No, just illiteracy on my part. Of course it's "O'Brian", I knew I
should have checked :-(

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

he was getting a bit desperate) first class historical novels, great
writing by any standards.

Agreed. I love his use of the period vernacular. Who knew that men
once used "dear" to address each other. It's takes two readings to
enjoy the stories. The first read is just a primer to the language.

Not if you're a Jane Austen fan. I have heard it said that these are the
novels that her sailor brothers would have written. Some of the naval
language is a bit obscure, but that's what the associated books are so
useful for.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What did you think of the film?

I enjoyed it, but didn't see it till long after I read that particular
book in the series. Now that I've just recently finished Far Side of the
World, I'm somewhat disappointed. Except for lifting an episode here
and there, the movie has little to do with the book of the same title, or
any other of the series, for that matter. You'd think with twenty
books, they wouldn't need to write their own fiction for the film.
OTOH, the film did capture the atmosphere of the books. I've never
seen another film portray life aboard a sailing ship so well.

The film was mostly a conflation of two books, and of course they had to
change the villains from Americans to French so as not to endanger the
box office in the USA.. But we saw it at the same time as the final LotR
film, which was infuriating because it departed so far from the spirit
of the book (each film got progressively worse in that department), and
were quite overcome by how faithfully Peter Weir captured the atmosphere

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The cook book is a must have.

I have it but really have no desire to use it. I had no idea how much
slush (beef fat) was in their diet. The book should've been titled
Grease Floats. 😉

Well you wouldn't want to eat most of the food on a regular basis,
though most of the puddings are made to this day, with lighter
shortenings. Many of the recipes are the style of the sort of stuff the
Two Fat Ladies used to do - they had cast iron digestions in those days,
and I'm not surprised there was a lot of constipation! And of course if
you are looking for a recipe for rats in onion sauce...

Christine

TFM® said:

jmcquown said:

Tara said:

On Mon, 1 May 2006 17:10:28 -0500, "jmcquown"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

> One wonders if they will cook chili. Or beans. Or beans in chili.
>
> The next in the the 'house' series produced by Public Broadcasting,
> this time they drop a few families down in conditions similar to
> 1867 Texas. The series starts tonight on PBS and for the next four
> nights. I'm betting someone bakes cornbread in cast iron. Maybe
> some cornmeal griddle cakes (love those!). Maybe they'll even bake
> biscuits over an open fire or bake some soda bread.

I love all the "house" shows. It's so interesting to learn and
think about the minutae of day to day life in historical times.
I've been obsessed with the Little House on the Prairie book series
since I was
five years old.

The funny thing about 'The Frontier House' was that the teenagers
said specifically it wasn't "Little House on the Prairie". They
didn't get to wash their hair every day and they didn't have time to
braid their hair. Factually, if you braided your hair you kept it
braided for about a week and when you took it down to finally wash
it in the creek, it was funky and gunky. Homemade shampoo made with
a little soaproot and some sweet smelling herbs. Nice, but only
once a week, if that 🙂

Jill

How about that good ol' concoction made from ashes, grease and water?

Sometimes known as lye.

Give them teeny-boppers some of that [censored] and watch 'em squirm!

That's called soap. AKA shampoo. Although soaproot and herbs are better 🙂

Jill

ntantiques said:

Like most successfully married couples I know, I always thought Bill &
Lisa Cooke had worked out a balance that works very well for them.
She's more outgoing and outspoken than he is - he's a subdued kind of
guy - but make no mistake, Bill has a very focused, well defined
personality - definitely not some New Age California wimp. The
Cooke's, as I've known them, are very much on the same page in most
areas and share very traditional values...and in their real life, it
was actually Bill who had the last word. They've worked hard on their
"Norman Rockwell American family" - hardly the norm for the 'burbs of
San Francisco - and have done a terrific job raising their 3

daughters.

Quoted message said:

selective editing? everyone on the entire ranch says that bill has no
balls
and lisa rules. i see it that way too. i'm sure editing plays a part but
it's
pretty evident who has the ball sack in that family. the only reason
lisa
doesn't completely rule bill's life is because she doesn't go to work
with
him in real life. just because lisa is the dominant figure in the family
doesn't mean they have a bad or odd family. i'm sure lisa raised those
kids well while bill was at work. i've noticed that the girls will defy
bill
passively but when lisa says something, it's done without question.
besides, i'm sure lisa lets bill borrow her ball sack for a few hours
when the guys come over to watch the game or something ;-)

ntantiques said:

reflected by the program's editors. She found it amusing, if not a bit
disappointing, that the production staff actively encouraged
"fireworks" between participants

Of this I have no doubt. After watching the 2nd night, it's become
obvious this whole thing is being orchestrated as more of a Jerry
Springer episode than anything about the historical West.

("you won't believe what I heard

Quoted message said:

(blank) say about you"😉 and related that she and "the girl of all work"
had frustrated the efforts to start "trouble" between them from the
very beginning of their stay.

Yes, but she's no doubt well on her way to creating her own "trouble".
You don't take a job as a maid and then start threatening ultimatums
over women's rights.

Quoted message said:

Truth is, 19th century cowboys often didn't eat very well - it went
with the territory. They called it "grub" for a reason and it was

Agreed. Beans n' beef was typical in those days and all the cowboys
sniveling about the food is just pathetic. OTOH, it's now obvious
Nacho was a total scrub. An insecure, moody, malcontent, with no
sense of responsibility. This guy is not going to do well in any job
in any time period.

Quoted message said:

What I do find a little odd is that none of those whiney cowboys has
suggested wacking a cow and dragging it home for BBQ! Maybe tonight.

No kidding. That was my first thought, too. Here you've got 87 beef
at your doorstep and people are talking about not getting sufficient
nourishment. That's just stupid. Feed 'em beef and make 'em hunt
cattle sun up ta' sundown. I suspect the producers had a hand in
this.

nb

ntantiques said:

She's more outgoing and outspoken than he is - he's a subdued kind of
guy - but make no mistake, Bill has a very focused, well defined
personality - definitely not some New Age California wimp.

But, thanks to Lisa's lack of propriety, Bill's authority is
undermined. She should save her arguments and squables for more
private time. Not good to do this in front of the hired help.

Quoted message said:

Cooke's, as I've known them, are very much on the same page in most
areas and share very traditional values...and in their real life, it
was actually Bill who had the last word.

Yeah, he strikes me as a quiet authority. He did get quite testy with
the women around the skittish horse.

Quoted message said:

Interesting how selective editing can skew our perceptions of people in
the name of entertainment. I'd sure hate to think how I'd have come
across if I'd been there!

Granted, but Lisa, being a history buff, should have some knowledge of
men's and women's social roles in the period they are re-enacting and
you would think some insights as to how to conduct herself around the
hired help. Specially in light of the fact the cowboys are all
wannabes and are bound to play the macho part to the hilt. Evidently
not.

nb

notbob said:

On 2006-05-03, ntantiques <[email hidden]> wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Interesting how selective editing can skew our perceptions
of people in the name of entertainment. I'd sure hate to
think how I'd have come across if I'd been there!

Granted, but Lisa, being a history buff, should have some
knowledge of men's and women's social roles in the period
they are re-enacting and you would think some insights as
to how to conduct herself around the hired help. Specially
in light of the fact the cowboys are all wannabes and are
bound to play the macho part to the hilt. Evidently not.

Stereotypes abound, even with the viewing audience apparently...

Why is it so difficult to imagine a man marrying an out-spoken,
strong-willed woman during the reenactment period of ranch house?
Lilies didn't live away from, let alone thrive in, metropolitan areas.
My great grandmothers on either side were living proof of that. One
went through three husbands before she kicked it. Ornery as a
bee-stung mule that one. I only went under her lashing tongue once --
and it was MORE than enough. At 4'-11", she could ride a horse, milk a
cow, and churn butter longer than any of the males... She wasn't
abnormal either if the rest of the family is correct. My grans weren't
slouches, either. A woman ran the house, staff and finances, while the
man was in charge of physical labor and other mystic "male" schtuff
(drinking).

The Ranger

Old Mother Ashby said:

and I'm not surprised there was a lot of constipation!

I think constipation was more a result of daily grog than the high
meat diet. When I lost 30 lbs on the short-lived Atkins diet, I had
no problemn with regularity. In fact, I was amazed at just how
fiberous meat and cheese can be. The real problem is hydration. If
one gets enough water and excercise, regularity won't be an issue.
But, alcohol dehydrates the body and thus promotes constipation. For
my part, I decided against most of the recipes because of the
cholesterol. I'd like to try some of the puddings, though.

nb

The Ranger said:

A woman ran the house, staff and finances, while the
man was in charge of physical labor and other mystic "male" schtuff
(drinking).

I sure as heck am in charge of the drinking 'round my house.

Quoted message said:

The Ranger

--Bryan

jmcquown said:

TFM® said:

jmcquown said:

Tara wrote:

>On Mon, 1 May 2006 17:10:28 -0500, "jmcquown"
><[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>One wonders if they will cook chili. Or beans. Or beans in chili.
>>
>>The next in the the 'house' series produced by Public Broadcasting,
>>this time they drop a few families down in conditions similar to
>>1867 Texas. The series starts tonight on PBS and for the next four
>>nights. I'm betting someone bakes cornbread in cast iron. Maybe
>>some cornmeal griddle cakes (love those!). Maybe they'll even bake
>>biscuits over an open fire or bake some soda bread.

I have seen 2 episodes and don't care for it's 'reality t.v.' quality.
Ordinarily i would not mention it but i have been looking for an excuse
to mention a Chinese Drama that plays on a local Asian station here in
the bay area, its called, if i understand it correctly "Jeung Palace"

And takes place in the royal kitchens of a 15th century palace in Korea.

It is in Chinese with english subtitles and i find it very good, not
only is the story very interesting but the acting, sets, costumes etc.
are all very good, and the subtitles are easy to read.

PRimarily it is about the politics of the senior ladies of the palace
kitchens and the machinations they go through to achieve, keep and
secure their place in the palace hierarchy. But it has lots of Asian
food lore in it.
--
JL

Food Snob said:

The Ranger wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A woman ran the house, staff and finances, while the
man was in charge of physical labor and other mystic "male" schtuff
(drinking).

I sure as heck am in charge of the drinking 'round my house.

I only saw my grandfather blush once. The morning _after_ drinking
himself stoopid, knowing his ma was due in early. The Boys (uncles,
cousins, and two hired helpers) scattered like so many mice under my
great grandmother's controlled fury.

She wasn't a tea-totaller but getting yourself blotto was acceptable
either... Especially when "daylight was burnin' and chores needed
doin'."

The Ranger
--
When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on
your side, argue the facts. When neither is on your side, bang the
table and insult your opponent.

The Ranger said:

Why is it so difficult to imagine a man marrying an out-spoken,
strong-willed woman during the reenactment period of ranch house?

It's not. I'm sure it was done then as well as now. But, one doesn't
bring private disputes to the marketplace. Parents don't argue
discipline in front of the kids, officers don't chastise junior
officers in front of enlisted men, yada yada.... In short,
divisiveness should not be publicized. Hey, if Lisa wants to go out
and kick some hired hand butt, then get the Hell out there and do it.
But, don't [censored] around and argue with the head butt-kicker about how
it should be done in front of the kickees.

Quoted message said:

My great grandmothers on either side were living proof of that.

Both my grandma and mom were, also. Willful hardworking women, both.
My mom was a single mother who onced worked two full time jobs and
later was a traffic cop. Hell, she's still got more hours in a Harley
saddle than I do.

nb

The Ranger said:

Why is it so difficult to imagine a man marrying an out-spoken,
strong-willed woman during the reenactment period of ranch house?
Lilies didn't live away from, let alone thrive in, metropolitan areas.
My great grandmothers on either side were living proof of that.

Unless your grandmothers lived in the 1850s, you're still not getting an
accurate idea of social constraints and behavior.

On Wed, 03 May 2006 15:37:01 -0400, Goomba38 <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The Ranger said:

Why is it so difficult to imagine a man marrying an out-spoken,
strong-willed woman during the reenactment period of ranch
house? Lilies didn't live away from, let alone thrive in,
metropolitan areas. My great grandmothers on either side
were living proof of that.

Unless your grandmothers lived in the 1850s, you're still not
getting an accurate idea of social constraints and behavior.

And what's inaccurate about my ideas of social constraints and proper
behavior?

ObFood: Fried liver and onions.

The Ranger
--
"All Scottish cooking is based on a dare"
Mike Meyers

Goomba38 said:

The Ranger said:

Why is it so difficult to imagine a man marrying an out-spoken,
strong-willed woman during the reenactment period of ranch house?
Lilies didn't live away from, let alone thrive in, metropolitan areas.
My great grandmothers on either side were living proof of that.

Unless your grandmothers lived in the 1850s, you're still not getting an
accurate idea of social constraints and behavior.

Male dominance was never in recorded history total and unchallenged,
there have always been strong dominant women, who have been able to
control men one way or another. History and literature overflow with them.

The lesson of Medea is to not marry a witch or sorceress, and if you do,
don't [censored] her off.

The fish wives of L'Halles are notorious.

How many comic movies have come out recently about the big fat black
momma that puts the fear of god into the biggest man with just a look.

And the skinny black women trying to do the same thing with equally
comic results.

Many women have captured a man by appearing submissive and once she has
him, through duplicity (but probly no more than the mans) she shows her
true domineering colours, many times men will just accept this, and try
to live with it, BBC "Keeping Up Appearances". The gossips say this is
how Di got Chuck. A shy sensitive 'virgin' married Prince charming only
to become the aggressive female, outraged by her own duplicity. It gets
very complicated very fast. Especially in a time and of a class where
every body worked so much there was little time left for courting and
romance, a lot of marriages were arranged 'informally' and in the higher
reaches of wealth and power more "Formally" sometimes as a matter of state.
--
JL

Goomba38 said:

The Ranger said:

Why is it so difficult to imagine a man marrying an out-spoken,
strong-willed woman during the reenactment period of ranch house?
Lilies didn't live away from, let alone thrive in, metropolitan areas.
My great grandmothers on either side were living proof of that.

Unless your grandmothers lived in the 1850s, you're still not getting an
accurate idea of social constraints and behavior.

Male dominance was never in recorded history total and unchallenged,
there have always been strong dominant women, who have been able to
control men one way or another. History and literature overflow with them.

The lesson of Medea is to not marry a witch or sorceress, and if you do,
don't [censored] her off.

The fish wives of L'Halles are notorious.

How many comic movies have come out recently about the big fat black
momma that puts the fear of god into the biggest man with just a look.

And the skinny black women trying to do the same thing with equally
comic results.

Many women have captured a man by appearing submissive and once she has
him, through duplicity (but probly no more than the mans) she shows her
true domineering colours, many times men will just accept this, and try
to live with it, BBC "Keeping Up Appearances". The gossips say this is
how Di got Chuck. A shy sensitive 'virgin' married Prince charming only
to become the aggressive female, outraged by her own duplicity. It gets
very complicated very fast. Especially in a time and of a class where
every body worked so much there was little time left for courting and
romance, a lot of marriages were arranged 'informally' and in the higher
reaches of wealth and power more "Formally" sometimes as a matter of state.
--
JL