- Joined
- Feb 16, 2017
- Messages
- 689
- Reaction score
- 29
In the silent movie era, but nothing recent. I’d never heard about it until recently. Although Von Ryan’s Express could be seen as kinda similarIf I'm not mistaken there was a movie about it.
In the silent movie era, but nothing recent. I’d never heard about it until recently. Although Von Ryan’s Express could be seen as kinda similarIf I'm not mistaken there was a movie about it.
There's also a novelization I read 10 years ago, but I didn't see it mentioned in the wikipedia page.In the silent movie era, but nothing recent. I’d never heard about it until recently. Although Von Ryan’s Express could be seen as kinda similar
!!!!! have you not seen:
Incidentally, there's a fantastic Train Chase in Buster Keaton's "The General"
Culminating in the most expensive stunt ever on film, (At the time)
Its Fuckin-A.
And:
Confederates don't have monopoly on positive portrayals in film.
If you're not too wary of exposing your identity to a discrete reader, are either of those published? I would be very interested to read.(1)
Crazily enough, the only person I personally know (a mother of a school friend from China) who lived through the Cultural Revolution speaks very, very positively of it and of Mao i.e. "everyone had what they needed," "it was a time of peace and equity," etc. and it legitimately caught be off-guard. (2)
Certainly, certainly, but all the justifications the south had aside, or ridiculous justifications an Atzlan enthusiast might have about the Aztecs, all people's have their excuses for barbarism.
The South's were and are more compelling than say, the Aztec empire, however, while it is material that we understand the culture and time put tremendous strain on the acceptance of slavery, that slavery can now be seen as awful, and was just as awful at the time no matter what the excuses.
1. The people who fooled themselves into owning other people based on past history? Not awful by definition.
- Therefore -
2. The reality of owning other people? Awful by definition today and at the time.
An "Appeal to Tradition" where because something was seen as part of nature or that blacks were inferior and therefore acceptable at the time to keep them as chattel does not work.
They are partly excused from innocence, but, when faced with the truth they did not accept that slavery had reached a logical end. (Interesting about Christianity and slavery. Christianity does not condone slavery, however, says not to rebel against it. A lot of modernists wail and gnash their teeth about that, but the time was the time, and the point as Paul went to pangs to explain was that God is in the business of the soul, not justice of the society, that is the business of the City of Man that should be brought to something more "holy" per converting the world of Caesar to be something more like the City of God.)
The South as we know fought to expand the bloody business.
That can be understood, and as I mentioned we can empathize and even sympathize with some good/mislead Confederates, but we can not excuse what slavery was.
Have you seen Gettysburg? It does actually follow Joshua Chamberlain and his Maine regiment. That along with Gods and Generals was very well done. I wish they would have done the other one that was supposed to follow.Fair enough, I didn’t accurately state what I meant. I meant more in the sense that the average Confederate soldier has traditionally received more depictions in film and fiction than the average Union soldier. Not that the Union as a whole is seen as historically worse. There are just more depictions of, say, individual Confederate enlisted or officers in fiction than people who fought for the Union. Basically I want more movies like Glory, only focusing on other units and events of the war.
No we can't. But there were also many other factors including tariffs and government coercion that led to the ultimate secession by the South. A lot of the tension was of course underlined by slavery, but it was never Lincoln's intention to end it, only western expansion.
You see, Lincoln received no Southern votes when he was elected. He ran as a Republican candidate who championed mercantilism, while wanting to limit slavery. The pro-slavery extremists were sure the Republicans would win control of Congress and the Supreme Court. They thought that ultimately, the Constitution would be changed or bypassed to outlaw slavery everywhere.
Even if this did not happen, southerners were worried. Unless slavery could spread, the slave population in the South would become too large. In time, blacks and whites would battle for control. A great rebellion would occur and/or one or the other would be destroyed.
So, the Southern fear was that the Republicans were going to change their way of life and there was nothing they could do about it.
This is what led to secession by 7 of the Southern states.
It was thought of as a necessary evil by many.
I have, but I confess I wasn’t paying the closest attention. We watched parts of it in school, but that class had some girls I liked in itHave you seen Gettysburg? It does actually follow Joshua Chamberlain and his Maine regiment. That along with Gods and Generals was very well done. I wish they would have done the other one that was supposed to follow.
True.I think our discussion speaks for itself and any other disagreements would be quibbling.
We can certainly agree that history is complicated, and when making judgments the more we know about whatever happened helps us understand, and hopefully to give an honest picture of the past.
lolI have, but I confess I wasn’t paying the closest attention. We watched parts of it in school, but that class had some girls I liked in it
BTW, I'm not disagreeing with you, simply trying to give you some perspective.I think our discussion speaks for itself and any other disagreements would be quibbling.
We can certainly agree that history is complicated, and when making judgments the more we know about whatever happened helps us understand, and hopefully to give an honest picture of the past.
I certainly will, I’m glad that you reminded me about it, as it didn’t come up in my memory of movieslol
You should watch it again. Chamberlain was an amazing soldier and man. He is one of my favorite people that that war produced. A true officer and gentleman.
Set aside plenty of time. its 3 hours plus...but I didn't want it to end.I certainly will, I’m glad that you reminded me about it, as it didn’t come up in my memory of movies
Wow. I could only see this being the case if you were on fertile enough land, your local authorities were smart enough not to inflate their rice quotas, and you had plenty of wood to burn.If you're not too wary of exposing your identity to a discrete reader, are either of those published? I would be very interested to read.
Crazily enough, the only person I personally know (a mother of a school friend from China) who lived through the Cultural Revolution speaks very, very positively of it and of Mao i.e. "everyone had what they needed," "it was a time of peace and equity," etc. and it legitimately caught me off-guard.
Interestingly enough, for a long time it kinda was. The lost cause narrative held a firm grip on popular culture for quite a while.I'd never heard that story but I agree it would make for a great movie "based on real events".
I think the other point is interesting too, we don't get a lot of romanticizing of the Union even though they won the war. Is Hollywood full of Confederacy sympathizers?
Wow. I could only see this being the case if you were on fertile enough land, your local authorities were smart enough not to inflate their rice quotas, and you had plenty of wood to burn.
Fair enough, I didn’t accurately state what I meant. I meant more in the sense that the average Confederate soldier has traditionally received more depictions in film and fiction than the average Union soldier. Not that the Union as a whole is seen as historically worse. There are just more depictions of, say, individual Confederate enlisted or officers in fiction than people who fought for the Union. Basically I want more movies like Glory, only focusing on other units and events of the war.
I just thought of another point that led me to create this thread that you may be interested in. One of the other big things that I think affects this is that southerners have a better idea of their state’s heritage in the war. The people I’ve met from Georgia, and other southern states, have a good idea if their relatives served, or which units in their hometown were involved at different battles. I only found out, while reading about a different unit, that the town I currently live in, way up north, was the primary recruiting center for a division’s sharpshooters. They fought at Gettysburg and several other key battles. I thought that was amazing history to learn, but there aren’t any plaques or pieces in the historical society about it. No one knows that history. It’s sad.Set aside plenty of time. its 3 hours plus...but I didn't want it to end.
Yes it is.I just thought of another point that led me to create this thread that you may be interested in. One of the other big things that I think affects this is that southerners have a better idea of their state’s heritage in the war. The people I’ve met from Georgia, and other southern states, have a good idea if their relatives served, or which units in their hometown were involved at different battles. I only found out, while reading about a different unit, that the town I currently live in, way up north, was the primary recruiting center for a division’s sharpshooters. They fought at Gettysburg and several other key battles. I thought that was amazing history to learn, but there aren’t any plaques or pieces in the historical society about it. No one knows that history. It’s sad.