|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
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)
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)
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).
Ewert is unsure if he wants to give his readers a dissertation on "revisionism", a history lesson of the Late War, or a movie review. Ewert attacks the "causes of the war", but fails to notice Gods & Generals begins after the War has begun. Ewert mocks "the army of the Lord", referring to the strong Christian leader Gen. Thomas J. Jackson as well as the "didactic sermonizing" throughout the film.
Ewert goes on to criticize the production as "highly unrealistic to anybody familiar with real war" and "serious historians know such scenes are hogwash", when, in fact, leading Civil War historians were consultants for the movie.
Rotten Tomatoes, a movie review website, is noted with negative reviews of the film from authoritative sources such as the NY Times and LA Times. A conservative movie with Christian undertones got bad reviews from liberal media outlets -- I'm shocked! The fact the SPLC carries his review adds more credence to Gods & Generals being a great film and an honorable attempt to portray a complex time in America's history.
Gods and Generals is not for the sitcom crowd that enjoys homosexual jokes and "reality" tv hows. It is a deep look into the men who fought, the reasons they did, and the result of their fateful decisions. If you want a great production to spur conversation, thought, and research into America's past, watch Gods & Generals.
Bottom Line: Ewert should read the book on which the movie is based and reconsider his unfounded review.