|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Posted on 10/13/2003 7:07:18 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
When George Ewert , director of the Museum of Mobile, wrote a stinging movie review of the Civil War film "Gods and Generals," he likely did not expect an equally harsh critique from Mayor Mike Dow .
Ewert's review, "Whitewashing the Confederacy (SPLC link)," was not kind to the Ted Turner film.
"'Gods and Generals' is part of a growing movement that seeks to rewrite the history of the American South, downplaying slavery and the economic system that it sustained. In museums, schools and city council chambers, white neo-Confederates are hard at work in an effort to have popular memory trump historical accuracy," the city employee wrote.
And this: "It is cloying and melo dramatic, and its still characters give an endless series of ponderous, stilted speeches about God, man and war."
In turn, Dow was not kind to Ewert, reprimanding the city employee in a Friday letter. The mayor called Ewert's review unnecessarily strongly worded, inflammatory and counterproductive.
"Why, in your very public position with all the local 'Southern Heritage' controversy that city leaders have had to manage and after several years of a hard-fought political calming of this issue, would you inject yourself so strongly and carelessly into this topic in this manner?" the mayor wrote.
"I need for you to use your better judgment and please cease and desist publishing potentially inflammatory articles of this nature without your board chairman's or my awareness and approval. Leave that to others who have less to do."
The city, particularly Dow, has come under fire in the past from Southern heritage groups claiming unfair treatment.
Ewert's review was printed in the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report. The Montgomery-based organization's Intelligence Project monitors hate groups and extremist activities.
At the end of the movie review, there is a line that notes Ewert's position with the city.
Mobile City Council President Reggie Copeland also scolded Ewert, saying at last week's council meeting that he "would accept nothing less than a public apology. ... I am very displeased with that gentleman, and I want some action taken."
Copeland made the comments after hearing about the review but before reading it. He later told the Mobile Register that the review was "not as strong as I thought it would have been. ... I just wish he would have kept his mouth shut."
Ewert, contacted last week, declined comment except to say that he would be preparing a statement for Dow. In a letter to Dow dated Oct. 9 -- one day before Dow's letter -- Ewert said the review was written in his capacity as a historian and private individual.
"I regret that anyone may have taken my comments in a 'personal' matter," Ewert wrote. "My intent was not to offend but to offer a legitimate criticism and context for the movie in question, a privilege that should by rights be open to anyone. If, again, there were those who were offended by the movie review, I offer my apologies."
Don't shoot ...:
Area veterinarian Ben George , a Confederate Battle Flag and Confederate-heritage advocate, praised Dow for his response to the review. But George said Ewert did not apologize and should resign or be fired.
"He (Ewert) shot somebody; he said he's going to shoot somebody again," George said.
George in the past has made himself something of a thorn in Dow's side, organizing demonstrations in front of Dow's house, plastering posters criticizing the mayor during the last city election and using other tactics to push his Confederate heritage agenda.
George complained to Dow after reading Ewert's article. "My staff and I have had to deal with an unnecessary and increased fallout as a result of your article," Dow stated in his letter to Ewert.
George compared the situation to the firing of a Mobile police officer, accused of using the n-word and expressing a lack of interest in helping evacuate public housing residents in case of flooding.
Ewert, like the police officer, George said, has proven himself intolerant toward part of Mobile's population, namely Confederate heritage proponents like himself.
George said he and several others planned to speak at Tuesday's City Council meeting about Ewert's comments, along with concerns that Dow has not kept his word on settling previous disputes. But, he said, the speakers may reconsider.
An accounting of why and for what some people chose to fight the consolidated government of Washington D.C. is rewriting history?
The movie does a fine job of explaining why many fought, and even how the war turned to the question of slavery. The people trying to act like the war wasn't about more than just slavery are guilty of rewriting history, but the victor has that perogative...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If history must be re-written, if socialism needs to be heralded; whatever is required.....all must be educated to hate the South.
If only the South had first freed their slaves, the North would not have had any problem with secession. (/sarcasm)
In what way?
Who, but the federal government of the North, could have nurtured, grown, defended, bankrolled, and built an entire empire on the selling/trading of slaves?
Slavery was introduced to the South by the North. The North had slaves before the South, and kept slaves after those in the South were freed.
Who's downplaying an economic system of slavery here?
(but, that's different though)
What would patriotic Americans then be fighting for: gay rights or nations' rights?
Did religious people at war in the 1800's speak like MTV hosts?
An interesting question is how people spoke in various times in the past, e.g., what degree of formality did they use in daily speech, did they speak in "paragraphs". There are letters, and speeches available, but no one transcribes daily conversation.
Today's communication style of camera cuts, product placement, what's-on-the-other-channel and got-a-3 o'clock biases the modern perspective.
Gods and Generals is a fascinating movie, for the speech and the battle scenes (the only movie civil war battle scenes that smack of realism).
Slavery was firmly established in the Union before the South even existed.
Why should the South be ashamed, but not the North? Why did the North keep slaves after those in the South were freed?
Perhaps if you called my a liar again we could both dodge, & avoid, these questions.
Haven't seen the movie, but read the book by Jeff Shaara (who recently did the 3 hr Booknotes interview on C-SPAN). He did not delve into the politics of the war , in his book(s). He merely described the events through the eyes of the major players; Lee, "Stonewall" Jackson, Grant,etc. He did it in novel form, though he tried to remain as historically acurate as he could.And whether you love or hate the South and their cause, you can't deny that the men of the Confederacy fought bravely and fought well.
I'd like to see the movie,but Shaara implied it was not true to the book.
If their object had really been to abolish slavery, or maintain liberty or justice generally, they had only to say: All, whether white or black, who want the protection of this government, shall have it; and all who do not want it, will be left in peace, so long as they leave us in peace. Had they said this, slavery would necessarily have been abolished at once; the war would have been saved; and a thousand times nobler union than we have ever had would have been the result. It would have been a voluntary union of free men; such a union as will one day exist among all men, the world over, if the several nations, so called, shall ever get rid of the usurpers, robbers, and murderers, called governments, that now plunder, enslave, and destroy them.
Still another of the frauds of these men is, that they are now establishing, and that the war was designed to establish, "a government of consent." The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this--that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot. This idea was the dominant one on which the war was carried on; and it is the dominant one, now that we have got what is called "peace."
Their pretenses that they have "Saved the Country," and "Preserved our Glorious Union," are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people. This they call "Saving the Country"; as if an enslaved and subjugated people--or as if any people kept in subjection by the sword (as it is intended that all of us shall be hereafter)--could be said to have any country. This, too, they call "Preserving our Glorious Union"; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated.
All these cries of having "abolished slavery," of having "saved the country," of having "preserved the union," of establishing "a government of consent," and of "maintaining the national honor," are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats--so transparent that they ought to deceive no one--when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has succeeded the war, or for now compelling the people to pay the cost of the war, or for compelling anybody to support a government that he does not want." - Lysander Spooner, "No Treason" 1870
He has them and exercised them. He's not in jail, which is more than can be said for newspaper editors who did not agree with Lincoln's effort to conquer the Confederacy.
Slavery was one of many factors in this war. States' Rights and an encroaching Federal Government were, in my opinion, much greater contributors. Now, the liberals are trying to reopen old wounds and further split this country apart. I personally resent their activities as unAmerican and treasonous.
Are you suggesting that Virginia was a confederate state at that time? Even after independence was won, Virginia was a Union state.
The Union invested heavily, and received a healthy return on their slave trading.
But, let's blame the Dutch, or the Canadians, or the South, or anybody convenient. Just not the friends of big government, the North.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.