'Gods and Generals' presents reality history (Phyllis Schlafly)

townhall.com ^ | March 4, 2003 | Phyllis Schlafly

[condi2008]

"Gods and Generals" opened in movie theaters this past weekend, and at last we have a movie that presents truthful history rather than fiction or politically correct revisionism. This epic recounts the gripping history of the Civil War prior to Gettysburg, and there isn't a dull moment in its awesome four hours. The movie faithfully shows the sincere motives of the valiant men of principle on both sides. The movie shows that the Northerners fought to preserve the Union, and Virginians fought to defend their homeland against federal troops sent into their state (Southerners certainly did not die to defend slavery, since few Southern soldiers owned any slaves).

Defending one's homeland evokes powerful passions. It's no accident that the Bush administration chose the words "Homeland Security" to get Americans to accept the biggest expansion of government since the New Deal.

"Gods and Generals" doesn't take sides in the War between the States. Scriptwriter and director Ron Maxwell presents a balanced picture of a time long ago, when religious faith defined a man's duty and when leaders, such as Gen. Stonewall Jackson, were devout and outspoken Christians.

President Bush has asked Congress for $25 million to spread knowledge of American history, especially among young people, and to sponsor an annual National History Bee. But will the schools teach history as it really happened, or as the political correctness revisionists wish it had happened?

When the federal government financed a 271-page book in 1994 to prescribe "National Standards for United States History," it was a public relations disaster. The U.S. Senate repudiated it by a vote of 99 to 1, and Al Shanker said it was the first time a government tried to teach children to "feel negative about their own country."

The UCLA professors responsible for "Standards" then made cosmetic changes, but copies of the original book had already flooded schools and publishers and were easily available when the Goals 2000 law mandated the adoption of standards.

"Standards" has a 14-page section on the Civil War and Reconstruction, mostly revisionist history. It's hard to see how any historian could write 14 pages about the Civil War and never mention Gen. Robert E. Lee or Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, but "Standards" accomplished that feat.

On the other hand, "Standards" mentions Harriet Tubman six times, the Ku Klux Klan 17 times and Sen. Joseph McCarthy 19 times. The Gettysburg address is mentioned once, but it doesn't rank as high as the 1948 feminist declaration at Seneca Falls, which is mentioned six times.

"Standards" instructs students to read Civil War fiction, suggesting at least a dozen novels. Conspicuously missing from the list is the greatest American novel about the Civil War period, "Gone With the Wind."

The most amazing example of feminist political correctness in the Civil War section is this question posed for high school students: "Why is the word 'male' used for the first time in the Constitution in the 15th Amendment? Why were women excluded in the amendment?"

In fact, the word "male" does not appear in the 15th Amendment! The Constitution is and always has been a sex-neutral document, using only neutral words, such as citizen, person, inhabitant, resident, president, senator and representative.

The appalling ignorance of American history by students must extend to their professors, too. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, known as the nation's report card, less than half of high school seniors have even a basic grasp of American history.

A Boston newspaper editorial titled "The Disappearing History Term Paper" noted that the prize-winning essays for Prentice Hall's nationwide history competition prove that students are expected to write compositions based on feelings and impressions, not on research and evidence.

When I went to college, a student couldn't graduate without taking courses in both American and European history. Learning the basic facts of history was considered necessary to become an educated citizen, to appreciate our heritage, and to avoid repeating mistakes in the future.

Today, 55 colleges and universities, including the most prestigious, have no American history requirement and only a fifth of colleges require any course in history. On the other hand, some colleges do require courses in "non-Eurocentric culture or society," a requirement that can be met by courses in human development, sociology, theater, dance or film.

Why have colleges and public schools stopped teaching American history? One reason is the fact that more than half of senior and junior high school teachers didn't major or minor in history in college.

Another reason is the current fad for teaching multiculturalism, the code word for teaching that all other cultures are superior to Western civilization. A third reason is the passion for falsely indoctrinating students that America is a land of oppression.

"Gods and Generals" can remedy a glaring gap in the teaching of American history. It's a must-see.

[cogitator]

"Gods and Generals" doesn't take sides in the War between the States.

If so, then why are the three main battles it portrays First Manassas, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville? (Antietam got cut.)

A friend of mine, who's a bigger Civil War fan than I (and I am a Civil War fan) went to see G&G. Thought it was awful and that the battle scenes, fairly authentically staged, didn't make up for it. He recommended waiting for the DVD and then watching ONLY the battle scenes.

His main criticism was that it was trying to cover way too much. Gettysburg was "focused" on the events of three pivotal days. G&G covers three momentous years. It just can't be done.

[Lee Heggy]

Saw it a week ago. Historically accurate in the main and a fine potrayal of Gen. R.E. Lee. Stonewall was a little less so in his peculiarities but all in all a very fine film. The Civil War is such a huge subject that no four or five films could ever encompass it. My only criticisms are in regard to accuracy in details and while no one would wish to and even fewer could stomach seeing a battlefield such as Fredricksburg the way it really looked..well, it was a bit too clean. When people are killed by cannons and mini balls there is gore and lots of parts.

As a teacher at a college for the last 27 years I can atest to the rank ignorance of young Americans in regards to History and Civics. Neither of which is taught anymore the way they should be if at all. I spend more time doing remedial teaching than getting on with new material. As a nation we have miserably failed to inculcate any sense of personal ethics or real knowledge of our origins to our descendent generations. It will prove to be our undoing if we don't make quick changes.

[Valin]

His main criticism was that it was trying to cover way too much

Good point. A buddy of mine calls it the Stonewall Jackson movie.

[Lee Heggy]

Some fellows that I participate with in re-enactments were saying pretty much the same thing. The consensus was that if Gen. Jackson had not been killed the entire couse of the war especially the debacle at Gettysburg could very well have been much different. Lee lost his compass when he lost Jackson and that led to him making a few crucial mistakes.

[Valin]

As a teacher at a college for the last 27 years I can atest to the rank ignorance of young Americans in regards to History and Civics.

Very well put! I am constantly amazed at how little history of our country (let alone world history) people know.
So many folks seem to think that March 5th 2003 just HAPPENED, it sprang forth from Zeus's forehead.
I put a lot of the blame on the writers of history textbooks. They could make anything boring.

[Valin]

Agree. So much for the vast historical movement theory. One man can make a difference.

[homeschool mama]

**As a teacher at a college for the last 27 years I can atest to the rank ignorance of young Americans in regards to History and Civics. Neither of which is taught anymore the way they should be if at all. I spend more time doing remedial teaching than getting on with new material. As a nation we have miserably failed to inculcate any sense of personal ethics or real knowledge of our origins to our descendent generations. It will prove to be our undoing if we don't make quick changes. **

I applaud you for taking the necessary time instructing your college students. I'm certain it is most frustrating to not go forward at a necessary pace... Please know that most home educated students are learning true history rather than the revisionist crud taught in the gov't school system.

What university do you teach at?

[uncbob]

I have posted before and I will post here

I am northern born and bred

But I find it completely ironic how over 140 years after the War of Seccession ( yes I have come to se it was NOT a CIVIL WAR ) that the most patriotic Americans are those living in the SOUTHERN and WESTERN ( not Pacific Coast ) states and that most of the Anti American hating types live in the Union States ( and their reprsentatives in congress reflect that fact )

[dixierose]

Thanks for the Bump. I want to go see this movie, but I'll probably have to wait until it comes out on DVD.

[I still care]

I homeschool and teach history out of a history text written in 1879. I got it from the Conservative Book club. It is SO wonderful - it talks so positively about America, about how innovative and courageous our founding fathers were, and how entreprenurial and forward thinking the American way of life.

Many of the people in my group use pre-1960's texts for all kinds of things (not sciene of course)but you haven't lived until you have read an early civics text. They start out with goodness and kindness, and personal responsibility. You get the picture.

[ewing]

Is Antietam in the 6 hour Gods and Generals DVD?

[Sloth]

Colleges should not require *any* course that is unconnected to one's major. Producing well-rounded people versed in basic history, economics, etc., should be the job of high schools.

[cogitator]

Is Antietam in the 6 hour Gods and Generals DVD?

I have no idea, but it would make sense that it would be (I understand that they did actually film an Antietam reenactment).

A quick Google search found the article below, which seems to confim my understandings:

'Gods and Generals' a long history lesson

"One of the problems with historical accuracy is that it can spread like kudzu. "Gods and Generals" runs almost four hours, including an intermission. It's too much, and it could have been worse: Maxwell's original cut was six hours and included the battle of Antietam."

[Joe Republc]

I haven't seen the movie, and just looked at the Yahoo! Movie scorecard of grades from various critics. It's full of Cs and Ds, with the short quips of how dull the movie is.

Is this movie just too much for the PC crowd? Given thieir worldviews, it is even reasonable to expect the critics CAN stomach "Gods and Generals"? Or is the movie only for Civil War buffs?

I love a good movie, but frankly I'm not a Civil War history fan, so I'd like your opinions on why the critics are so harsh. In other words, while I applaud the worldview being presented, my interest is set back by the critics' consensus against the movie.

Thx,
-- Joe

[steve-b]

In fact, the word "male" does not appear in the 15th Amendment! The Constitution is and always has been a sex-neutral document, using only neutral words, such as citizen, person, inhabitant, resident, president, senator and representative.

Er, no. The "male" reference is in the Fourteenth Amendment. The author is wrong on the substance of the point, and the degree to which the statement is correct (citation of the wrong Amendment number) is an evasive quibble.

[AFMobster]

The university I went to used to have an American History requirement to graduate. Now it has been changed to choosing five out of eight "subject areas" where history is one of those areas. And in the area of history, American History is just one of four or five history subjects to choose from. One of those subjects includes the "History of Science." I kid you not. And because of the degree I was working on was in science, I had to take that course. So, I could have graduated from a major university and not have taken American History. RIDICULOUS!! I know this, because this was me third degree from that same university and in my first one, I had to take American History.

[steve-b]

The sense I get from viewers' comments is that the movie tried very hard to present character portraits that show why these men fought and believed that God was on their side, but it just didn't come off properly and sank into caricature.

[Lee Heggy]

I am currently working at two schools. University of Mo. and also at a local Community College. Home schooled students do have a definite leg up over the public schooled in that they are much better tutored by their perceptors in areas of study that are overlooked or skimped on due to 'mainstreaming' and 'PC' revisionist theory. I would certainly teach my children myself rather than have them dumbed down at a public school. That's not to say that I believe all public schooling is bad. I know ther are many very dedicated educators working in that system. I just don't know how they do it. Teaching in such a system would be like trying to shovel fleas across a barnyard.

[SCDogPapa]

"Is this movie just too much for the PC crowd? Given thieir worldviews, it is even reasonable to expect the critics CAN stomach "Gods and Generals"? Or is the movie only for Civil War buffs?"

This movie tells of the reason most Southerners fought. To defend their homes and family. That's why the PC crowd and the movie critics don't like it. Civil War buff or not, it's a very good movie. How long has it been since you have seen a movie with no cussin' or nudity???????