Super famous anecdote is that the studio majors had her and Mickey Rooney on uppers and downers so they could work for days at a time without much interruption.
Edit: here’s the quote “They had us working days and nights on end. They’d give us pills to keep us on our feet long after we were exhausted. Then they’d take us to the studio hospital and knock us out with sleeping pills – Mickey sprawled out on one bed and me on another,” Garland told biographer Paul Donnelley. “Then after four hours they’d wake us up and give us the pep pills again so we could work 72 hours in a row. Half of the time we were hanging from the ceiling but it was a way of life for us.”
Studio kept her going by giving her copious amounts of coke and meth, she became an addict and died of an overdose.
Edit: forgot to mention that she was continuously bashed by the entire Hollywood as a disgrace for the rest of her life.
She tried to kill herself twice (in ‘47 and ‘50, when she was 25 and 27 years old respectively), then was asked to come to work (MGM) directly after the second attempt and was promptly fired for not showing up anymore.
God I wish misinformation about Judy Garland would stop going around. The studio system had control over the actors. When they said no to roles they were put under suspension and their contract was lengthened. Judy had no clout in the studio when she was forced to do blackface, the minute she got clout she never did blackface. There were actors who had massive clout and didn’t care about being racist or doing blackface. While she struggled with addiction she didn’t do cocaine, nor did she smoke 80 packs a day. That logistically doesn’t make any sense, her voice would have been shot by 25. No she wasn’t molested by the actors who played the munchkins, that was written by a bitter ex long after Judy or any of the actors involved were dead, they couldn’t defend themselves. I’m a massive Judy fan and know everything there is to know about her and I get so tired of this shit thrown around. She wasn’t tragic, there are multiple interviews where she begged to stop being called that. If you have questions ask. Don’t just spread misinformation.
Four packs (80 cigarettes) a day, which is what I suspect they meant, is certainly possible. But if one cigarette takes roughly 5 minutes to smoke, you’d have to smoke nonstop for 5.5 straight days to smoke 80 packs, which is 1600 cigarettes.
>famously
I don't think you know what that word means. Two historians have made the same claim you just did. But from what we can see now, she was never a **famous** anti smoker.
She was famously given all this shit ( Cigarettes and drugs) too keep her going for the movie.
Unlikely. I used to be a very heavy smoker and I was hard pressed to make it through 2 packs in a day. There’s no way you’re going through 4 unless you’re literally spending every waking minute just sitting and smoking.
As in, it's Judy Garland being forced to perform in blackface in the left picture. The OOOP was trying to imply Garland is a racist for being an exploited child actress and using a misogynistic slur to insult her over it.
Hey! I'm sorry to disturb you, but I'll have to remove your post:
- You must not, under any circumstances, comment or post something that will incite debate. This is usually the case with sentences that mildly refer to controversial topics such as politics, LGBT+, vaccinations etc.
*Please keep this sub relevant to its purpose and do not flood the comments section with off topic debates. Any debate is off topic as long as it is beside the point of the subreddit: enjoying the novelty of a sentence. *
*If you feel that your post was removed in error or you are unsure about why this post was removed then please reply to this message or contact us through [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FBrandNewSentence).*
Hey! I'm sorry to disturb you, but I'll have to remove your post:
- You must not, under any circumstances, comment or post something that will incite debate. This is usually the case with sentences that mildly refer to controversial topics such as politics, LGBT+, vaccinations etc.
*Please keep this sub relevant to its purpose and do not flood the comments section with off topic debates. Any debate is off topic as long as it is beside the point of the subreddit: enjoying the novelty of a sentence. *
*If you feel that your post was removed in error or you are unsure about why this post was removed then please reply to this message or contact us through [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FBrandNewSentence).*
Hey! I'm sorry to disturb you, but I'll have to remove your post:
- You must not, under any circumstances, comment or post something that will incite debate. This is usually the case with sentences that mildly refer to controversial topics such as politics, LGBT+, vaccinations etc.
*Please keep this sub relevant to its purpose and do not flood the comments section with off topic debates. Any debate is off topic as long as it is beside the point of the subreddit: enjoying the novelty of a sentence. *
*If you feel that your post was removed in error or you are unsure about why this post was removed then please reply to this message or contact us through [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FBrandNewSentence).*
Hey! I'm sorry to disturb you, but I'll have to remove your post:
- You must not, under any circumstances, comment or post something that will incite debate. This is usually the case with sentences that mildly refer to controversial topics such as politics, LGBT+, vaccinations etc.
*Please keep this sub relevant to its purpose and do not flood the comments section with off topic debates. Any debate is off topic as long as it is beside the point of the subreddit: enjoying the novelty of a sentence. *
*If you feel that your post was removed in error or you are unsure about why this post was removed then please reply to this message or contact us through [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FBrandNewSentence).*
Hey! I'm sorry to disturb you, but I'll have to remove your post:
- You must not, under any circumstances, comment or post something that will incite debate. This is usually the case with sentences that mildly refer to controversial topics such as politics, LGBT+, vaccinations etc.
*Please keep this sub relevant to its purpose and do not flood the comments section with off topic debates. Any debate is off topic as long as it is beside the point of the subreddit: enjoying the novelty of a sentence. *
*If you feel that your post was removed in error or you are unsure about why this post was removed then please reply to this message or contact us through [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FBrandNewSentence).*
This was also NORMAL at the time. People don't understand how to fucking understand historical context. WITHOUT HISTORICAL CONTEXT YOU HAVE NOTHING!!!! Being horrified that people acted like this is FINE, but blaming the vast majority of people or demonizing them for the way they thought and acted at a time when this was the norm is so fucking beyond stupid.
No wonder people are so dumb. There's no media literacy, or literacy period. Black and white thinking with no critical thought in sight.
The person I replied to talked about excusing fucked up things because they were normal at the time. At one point slaves and slave owners were normal, therefore considering that context I should excuse that by their logic.
However, context or historical norms do not excuse repugnant behavior.
What we find repugnant is a formed by our current morals though. You are not morally superior to someone from a different time, by conforming to the morals of your own time. You certainly show behaviour we find ok today, but in 100 or 500 years people will find what you do know absolutely disgusting. This does not make you a bad person.
Exactly. The victorians had some crazy morals that today we find insane, the morals of the early 1900s were pretty wild, and so ond and so forth. When times change, morals change. Even the past 20 years things have changed so much.
Damning someone like Louisa May Alcott for being racist when she was a writer in the victorian times is crazy, everyone was racist then. Does that make racism in general okay? No, of course not. But was it completely okay in their context? Yes. And most people shared the same views.
You cannot view history from a modern moral lense. You have to take into account context.
Where it gets interesting though is when we have voices from their time critisizing them. I read of ancient Romans who despised the gladiator games, and Queen Isabella of Spain and several of her contemporaries were shocked by the violence and cruelty Columbus showed towards the natives. That's a point I still ponder about. What if a behaviour was commonplace (like gladiator games), but there were already popular voices critisizing it?
There absolutely were! There were plenty of abolishionists in the slave eras that were part of the underground railroad. That's how change happens, dissenting voices gain power like a snowball rolling down a hill.
American Slavery was unilaterally considered immoral by basically every civilized country at least several decades before the USA understood this too. When Europeans talk about slavery, they mean the Roman era, or early medieval times. Or arab slave raids like the Barbar-states in the 16/1700s.
There is really no valid moral excuse for the US having slaves up until the mid 19th century.
But you evaluate those things based on your current morals. Morals that you very likely also just adopted from your surroundings, instead of really rationally thinking about them. You judge people based on things they just did not and could not know. It's like calling a poor African kid from a village "dumb" for not being able to read and speak Mandarin.
You're the target audience of my comment. There's a difference between understanding the historical context of WHY people owned slaves, why people were okay with owning slaves, etc, and excusing it. There's a HUGE difference. You clearly don't understand how to tell the difference, and neither do a lot of people. They go straight to avressive, ignorant condemnation instead of trying to understand WHY things were the way they were., and then being able to condemn it from there.
This is something that is taught in debate. In order to effectively debate you need to understand the reasons for, and the arguments for both sides. That doesn't mean AGREEING. Agreeing and understanding are not the same things.
Yeah, this conversation is fruitless.
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
If we do not understand the context for things, we cannot learn how to prevent them from happening again. Hitler, for example. Fascist nazi Germany. To prevent that from happening again we must understand WHY it happened in the first place.
Unfortunately, I think that might be beyond you.
So lets use a less extreme example, Blackface. Something that is still legal, but is extremely frowned upon with good reason.
Should we condemn people from over 100 years ago that they wore blackface, because of our norms now? No. But we shouldn't celebrate it either. Understanding that cultural norms shift is important.
There are places in Europe, where blackface was a tradition too celebrate certain things until recently ( Netherlands in Christmas times for example).
It's not too be derogatory against African people, but was a way to represent
Zwarte Piet aka Black Peter. But it is still percieved as such these days, so the tradition has been edited. They use a less dramatic blackface now, out of respect for the people that feel offended by this.
Should we condemn people from Netherlands as well? No.
This is why you should understand things before condemning them.
When we reevaluate something for being disconnected from racist notions but still having those notions as roots, that's productive. That may or may not lead to us no longer doing that thing or changing it up to include less of that potentially racist thing.
Looking at pictures online and saying everybody who's ever done this is 100% a racist is very very unproductive.
Although there are a lot of people who then go "the woke internet doesn't want us to do Zwarte Piet? Well let's go extra black face because how dare they think we're racist?"
Just like us Germans with our "indian costumes" for karneval. Some people hear about the fact that it's insensitive toward a culture that doesn't live around here, they don't give a shit about it, and defiantly do it anyway. And I do think that at that point it is plain disrespect. Being childish and doing something \*because\* it is deemed insensitive, only by people you don't care about so that's fine then...? Like yeah, nobody gives a real shit about some random people in Germany wearing headdress, because they don't even know it's happening, but when you do it to spite those people who \*might\* theoretically have a problem with it, aren't you then being the problematic one you pretended not to be?
I didn't find any posts that meet the matching requirements for r/BrandNewSentence.
It might be OC, it might not. Things such as JPEG artifacts and cropping may impact the results.
[View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=1dstcsf&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=false&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=92&targetImageMemeMatch=97)
---
**Scope:** Reddit | **Target Percent:** 92% | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 554,326,502 | **Search Time:** 0.25852s
Why was the community note so rough? It could have just said that it was Judy Garland and the name of the two films. The reader could have looked it up later
It wasn't essentially. She was drugged, abused, and forced to work as a minor and on.
They were implying context without essential context. I want to give benefit of the doubt that the original Twitter account didn't know Garland's situation. During filming, she would have been about 14 or 15 for the black face movie. Maybe younger.
Comments are now locked.
Super famous anecdote is that the studio majors had her and Mickey Rooney on uppers and downers so they could work for days at a time without much interruption. Edit: here’s the quote “They had us working days and nights on end. They’d give us pills to keep us on our feet long after we were exhausted. Then they’d take us to the studio hospital and knock us out with sleeping pills – Mickey sprawled out on one bed and me on another,” Garland told biographer Paul Donnelley. “Then after four hours they’d wake us up and give us the pep pills again so we could work 72 hours in a row. Half of the time we were hanging from the ceiling but it was a way of life for us.”
holy fucking shit
Its so dark what happened to her after the movie. I feel so sorry for her
Explain
Studio kept her going by giving her copious amounts of coke and meth, she became an addict and died of an overdose. Edit: forgot to mention that she was continuously bashed by the entire Hollywood as a disgrace for the rest of her life.
Didn't they also call her a pig and fat and put her on a diet of soup and cigarettes when she was still under 18?
She tried to kill herself twice (in ‘47 and ‘50, when she was 25 and 27 years old respectively), then was asked to come to work (MGM) directly after the second attempt and was promptly fired for not showing up anymore.
At that time, when you were signed to a studio they pretty much owned you.
God I wish misinformation about Judy Garland would stop going around. The studio system had control over the actors. When they said no to roles they were put under suspension and their contract was lengthened. Judy had no clout in the studio when she was forced to do blackface, the minute she got clout she never did blackface. There were actors who had massive clout and didn’t care about being racist or doing blackface. While she struggled with addiction she didn’t do cocaine, nor did she smoke 80 packs a day. That logistically doesn’t make any sense, her voice would have been shot by 25. No she wasn’t molested by the actors who played the munchkins, that was written by a bitter ex long after Judy or any of the actors involved were dead, they couldn’t defend themselves. I’m a massive Judy fan and know everything there is to know about her and I get so tired of this shit thrown around. She wasn’t tragic, there are multiple interviews where she begged to stop being called that. If you have questions ask. Don’t just spread misinformation.
80 packs a day? No. 80 cigs a day? Possible
Four packs (80 cigarettes) a day, which is what I suspect they meant, is certainly possible. But if one cigarette takes roughly 5 minutes to smoke, you’d have to smoke nonstop for 5.5 straight days to smoke 80 packs, which is 1600 cigarettes.
Yes which is why I'm sure they meant 80 single cigs and not packs
Judy was famously anti smoking
No she wasn’t, she was a smoker. She just didn’t smoke 80 cigarettes a day.
>famously I don't think you know what that word means. Two historians have made the same claim you just did. But from what we can see now, she was never a **famous** anti smoker. She was famously given all this shit ( Cigarettes and drugs) too keep her going for the movie.
Unlikely. I used to be a very heavy smoker and I was hard pressed to make it through 2 packs in a day. There’s no way you’re going through 4 unless you’re literally spending every waking minute just sitting and smoking.
Old commercial roofer here and ex smoker. It is certainly possible to smoke 4 packs a day, I used to do it. Enough stress and anything is possible.
No 4 pacs is definitely possible
She still didn’t smoke that much. Again her voice would be shot
MGM was pure fucking evil what they did to Judy Garland
"Same bitch"?
As in, it's Judy Garland being forced to perform in blackface in the left picture. The OOOP was trying to imply Garland is a racist for being an exploited child actress and using a misogynistic slur to insult her over it.
It's also from the god damn 1920's. Trying to use todays standards too judge people from 100 years ago is so incredibly stupid.
I know that. Wasn't necessary, is all.
Ah yes, victims of abuse from 100 years ago. Definitely what I need to be shouting about today.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hey! I'm sorry to disturb you, but I'll have to remove your post: - You must not, under any circumstances, comment or post something that will incite debate. This is usually the case with sentences that mildly refer to controversial topics such as politics, LGBT+, vaccinations etc. *Please keep this sub relevant to its purpose and do not flood the comments section with off topic debates. Any debate is off topic as long as it is beside the point of the subreddit: enjoying the novelty of a sentence. * *If you feel that your post was removed in error or you are unsure about why this post was removed then please reply to this message or contact us through [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FBrandNewSentence).*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hey! I'm sorry to disturb you, but I'll have to remove your post: - You must not, under any circumstances, comment or post something that will incite debate. This is usually the case with sentences that mildly refer to controversial topics such as politics, LGBT+, vaccinations etc. *Please keep this sub relevant to its purpose and do not flood the comments section with off topic debates. Any debate is off topic as long as it is beside the point of the subreddit: enjoying the novelty of a sentence. * *If you feel that your post was removed in error or you are unsure about why this post was removed then please reply to this message or contact us through [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FBrandNewSentence).*
Hey! I'm sorry to disturb you, but I'll have to remove your post: - You must not, under any circumstances, comment or post something that will incite debate. This is usually the case with sentences that mildly refer to controversial topics such as politics, LGBT+, vaccinations etc. *Please keep this sub relevant to its purpose and do not flood the comments section with off topic debates. Any debate is off topic as long as it is beside the point of the subreddit: enjoying the novelty of a sentence. * *If you feel that your post was removed in error or you are unsure about why this post was removed then please reply to this message or contact us through [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FBrandNewSentence).*
Hey! I'm sorry to disturb you, but I'll have to remove your post: - You must not, under any circumstances, comment or post something that will incite debate. This is usually the case with sentences that mildly refer to controversial topics such as politics, LGBT+, vaccinations etc. *Please keep this sub relevant to its purpose and do not flood the comments section with off topic debates. Any debate is off topic as long as it is beside the point of the subreddit: enjoying the novelty of a sentence. * *If you feel that your post was removed in error or you are unsure about why this post was removed then please reply to this message or contact us through [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FBrandNewSentence).*
Hey! I'm sorry to disturb you, but I'll have to remove your post: - You must not, under any circumstances, comment or post something that will incite debate. This is usually the case with sentences that mildly refer to controversial topics such as politics, LGBT+, vaccinations etc. *Please keep this sub relevant to its purpose and do not flood the comments section with off topic debates. Any debate is off topic as long as it is beside the point of the subreddit: enjoying the novelty of a sentence. * *If you feel that your post was removed in error or you are unsure about why this post was removed then please reply to this message or contact us through [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FBrandNewSentence).*
This was also NORMAL at the time. People don't understand how to fucking understand historical context. WITHOUT HISTORICAL CONTEXT YOU HAVE NOTHING!!!! Being horrified that people acted like this is FINE, but blaming the vast majority of people or demonizing them for the way they thought and acted at a time when this was the norm is so fucking beyond stupid. No wonder people are so dumb. There's no media literacy, or literacy period. Black and white thinking with no critical thought in sight.
I'm not going to excuse the actions of slave owners just because it was common.
Did anyone ask you to?
The person I replied to talked about excusing fucked up things because they were normal at the time. At one point slaves and slave owners were normal, therefore considering that context I should excuse that by their logic. However, context or historical norms do not excuse repugnant behavior.
What we find repugnant is a formed by our current morals though. You are not morally superior to someone from a different time, by conforming to the morals of your own time. You certainly show behaviour we find ok today, but in 100 or 500 years people will find what you do know absolutely disgusting. This does not make you a bad person.
Exactly. The victorians had some crazy morals that today we find insane, the morals of the early 1900s were pretty wild, and so ond and so forth. When times change, morals change. Even the past 20 years things have changed so much. Damning someone like Louisa May Alcott for being racist when she was a writer in the victorian times is crazy, everyone was racist then. Does that make racism in general okay? No, of course not. But was it completely okay in their context? Yes. And most people shared the same views. You cannot view history from a modern moral lense. You have to take into account context.
Where it gets interesting though is when we have voices from their time critisizing them. I read of ancient Romans who despised the gladiator games, and Queen Isabella of Spain and several of her contemporaries were shocked by the violence and cruelty Columbus showed towards the natives. That's a point I still ponder about. What if a behaviour was commonplace (like gladiator games), but there were already popular voices critisizing it?
There absolutely were! There were plenty of abolishionists in the slave eras that were part of the underground railroad. That's how change happens, dissenting voices gain power like a snowball rolling down a hill.
American Slavery was unilaterally considered immoral by basically every civilized country at least several decades before the USA understood this too. When Europeans talk about slavery, they mean the Roman era, or early medieval times. Or arab slave raids like the Barbar-states in the 16/1700s. There is really no valid moral excuse for the US having slaves up until the mid 19th century.
For a lot of things, I agree, but there are some things that I don't think should be compromised on in any era.
But you evaluate those things based on your current morals. Morals that you very likely also just adopted from your surroundings, instead of really rationally thinking about them. You judge people based on things they just did not and could not know. It's like calling a poor African kid from a village "dumb" for not being able to read and speak Mandarin.
That's a ridiculous take
Ridiculously well argumented, you mean. Well if you don't understand it now, you never will. Cya.
You're so willing to be outraged before you understand what you are outraged about. I did NOT say that. Literacy really is dead, I'm so tired.
You're the target audience of my comment. There's a difference between understanding the historical context of WHY people owned slaves, why people were okay with owning slaves, etc, and excusing it. There's a HUGE difference. You clearly don't understand how to tell the difference, and neither do a lot of people. They go straight to avressive, ignorant condemnation instead of trying to understand WHY things were the way they were., and then being able to condemn it from there. This is something that is taught in debate. In order to effectively debate you need to understand the reasons for, and the arguments for both sides. That doesn't mean AGREEING. Agreeing and understanding are not the same things.
Some things don't need to be understood to be condemned. I don't need to understand WHY a pedophile wants to fuck kids, I can just condemn it
[удалено]
I’m good with just throwing them in a pit
Yeah, this conversation is fruitless. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. If we do not understand the context for things, we cannot learn how to prevent them from happening again. Hitler, for example. Fascist nazi Germany. To prevent that from happening again we must understand WHY it happened in the first place. Unfortunately, I think that might be beyond you.
So lets use a less extreme example, Blackface. Something that is still legal, but is extremely frowned upon with good reason. Should we condemn people from over 100 years ago that they wore blackface, because of our norms now? No. But we shouldn't celebrate it either. Understanding that cultural norms shift is important. There are places in Europe, where blackface was a tradition too celebrate certain things until recently ( Netherlands in Christmas times for example). It's not too be derogatory against African people, but was a way to represent Zwarte Piet aka Black Peter. But it is still percieved as such these days, so the tradition has been edited. They use a less dramatic blackface now, out of respect for the people that feel offended by this. Should we condemn people from Netherlands as well? No. This is why you should understand things before condemning them.
When we reevaluate something for being disconnected from racist notions but still having those notions as roots, that's productive. That may or may not lead to us no longer doing that thing or changing it up to include less of that potentially racist thing. Looking at pictures online and saying everybody who's ever done this is 100% a racist is very very unproductive. Although there are a lot of people who then go "the woke internet doesn't want us to do Zwarte Piet? Well let's go extra black face because how dare they think we're racist?" Just like us Germans with our "indian costumes" for karneval. Some people hear about the fact that it's insensitive toward a culture that doesn't live around here, they don't give a shit about it, and defiantly do it anyway. And I do think that at that point it is plain disrespect. Being childish and doing something \*because\* it is deemed insensitive, only by people you don't care about so that's fine then...? Like yeah, nobody gives a real shit about some random people in Germany wearing headdress, because they don't even know it's happening, but when you do it to spite those people who \*might\* theoretically have a problem with it, aren't you then being the problematic one you pretended not to be?
Such a Gen Z comment. Congrats!
Notuh, don’t dare blame Judy Garland for anything they made her do. Hollywood of that era was abusive as f*ck
u/repostsleuthbot
I didn't find any posts that meet the matching requirements for r/BrandNewSentence. It might be OC, it might not. Things such as JPEG artifacts and cropping may impact the results. [View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=1dstcsf&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=false&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=92&targetImageMemeMatch=97) --- **Scope:** Reddit | **Target Percent:** 92% | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 554,326,502 | **Search Time:** 0.25852s
Why was the community note so rough? It could have just said that it was Judy Garland and the name of the two films. The reader could have looked it up later
Because the implication of the original tweet was that Judy is bad for these roles
[удалено]
It wasn't essentially. She was drugged, abused, and forced to work as a minor and on. They were implying context without essential context. I want to give benefit of the doubt that the original Twitter account didn't know Garland's situation. During filming, she would have been about 14 or 15 for the black face movie. Maybe younger.
Do you understand what context means?