I still have a hard time with how he framed his Civil War documentary with Shelby Foote really pushing he lost cause narrative. The damage he did with this depiction was significant. Foote framed the war war with a huge lie: that the south fought for its own freedom. It fought to retain slavery. That was the central cause for secession.
Take the lies about Robert E Lee. Shelby Foote said he was a noble man who hated slavery, but that's an outright lie. Lee did not find slavery repugnant; in fact he was deliberately cruel to the slaves he owned. He separated families and was especially ruthless punishing escaped slaves.
Burns' version of the Civil War attempted to be "fair and balanced" by downplaying the cause of the war, which was that Southern landed gentry did not want to lose their property and thus created a culture war dog whistle about states' rights and governmental overreach instead of saying "we deserve to own people."
Most of those who fought for the Confederacy did not own slaves and truly believed these lies, al the more when thousands of them died. It was Americans hating Americans and killing them because they didn't question the rationale behind the decisions that pushed the nation into its bloodiest war.
I recommend Erik Larsen's latest book The Demon of Unrest to anyone who is interested in how exactly we got to the point of civil war in the US. People seem to be bringing it up all the time these days, but if you probe them you might find that it's the same hollow diversionary messaging brought to us by those who want no strictures on what (and whom) they can own.
Agree with your factual points. They are indisputable. Suspect if he could do a redux he would to particular areas. Is possible he will come to understand more about binary aka the fallacy of the excluded middle and while doing so better understand while a coin has two sides there is one and only one edge, truth.
He was a fairly new filmmaker at this time, and let's remember that he had a huge list of sponsors. Bank of America, The Corporation for Public Broadcasting and PBS. Financial support for the original broadcast of The Civil War was provided by General Motors Corporation, The National Endowment for the Humanities, The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, The Arthur Vining Davis Foundations and The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
Prior to this he'd done the Brooklyn Bridge and Huey Long as well as an American Experience on Lindbergh. He hadn't really tackled race or misinformation, something he tried to rectify in Jazz and the story of Jack Johnson.
I am sure he would revise this if he could, or at least give Shelby Foote less airtime (and give Barbara Fields, a Black woman and the only voice that discredits the lost cause narrative, much more.) There aren't any do-overs, and that horse has left the barn.
Will the nation endure this next election? It's already teetering because the judiciary is both corrupt and untouchable.
Agree. It is next to impossible to ignore the sponsors' spoken and unspoken influence on such a project as well as it was his first all in US History. Correct if am wrong, didn't he do something akin to a first person interview post-production or is my recall wacko?
Q: Will the nation endure this next election? It's already teetering because the judiciary is both corrupt and untouchable.
A. Dunno. Do know there is one advantage ~indigenous~ enjoy no other person does, safe havens in country, and to the north and south. As critical, enuff know the safe passages to those havens and long prepared for the probability of turning on one another again especially when there is no foreign outlet to satisfy the thirst and appetite for blood.
He is one of the great historical writers of our time. Stephen Ambrose and James Bradley are prone to make assumptions driven by conclusions that they reached from other assumptions that often prove to be based on something other than historical record, but Larsen never does that. As to Shelby Foote, I think his history is about as sound as all of those statues of Johnny Reb that you see in the South.
Agree. Some historians know well history is not theirs, and was etched in stone exactly as it unfolded. They are the stewards of history and are responsible for its safekeeping. Nothing more. Is a humbling responsibility and duty.
Others claim history is carried on ~wind ~that only they hear.
“It is the storytellers who make us what we are, who create history, create memory and meaning.” Chinua Achebe (paraphrase as recalled from oral interview)
As an ~indigenous~ we search for storytellers beyond our kind. We long knew oral history as told by a [sanctioned] storyteller far exceeds the written word of heavily edit/streamlined text books.
Lucian is a storyteller as is Ken Burns. It is a gift. In English or Greek, storytelling is ~poetry~ at its finest.
Mr. Burns is rarely credited for being an extraordinary interdisciplinarian. Few can do what he did (style and substance) in 20 minutes. That includes knowing hoomans ability to fully absorb, process, recall, and apply degrade circa 22min. He reiforced his talk by repeating the word listen. Is a stronger word than most give it credit.
It's because he is so gifted I think it is all the more incumbent that he do it correctly, but even restricting oneself to historical documents can be fraught with peril because eventually it's all about the editing. Geoffrey Ward and Lynn Novick also bear responsibility for these films, the good and bad both.
I still have a hard time with how he framed his Civil War documentary with Shelby Foote really pushing he lost cause narrative. The damage he did with this depiction was significant. Foote framed the war war with a huge lie: that the south fought for its own freedom. It fought to retain slavery. That was the central cause for secession.
Take the lies about Robert E Lee. Shelby Foote said he was a noble man who hated slavery, but that's an outright lie. Lee did not find slavery repugnant; in fact he was deliberately cruel to the slaves he owned. He separated families and was especially ruthless punishing escaped slaves.
Burns' version of the Civil War attempted to be "fair and balanced" by downplaying the cause of the war, which was that Southern landed gentry did not want to lose their property and thus created a culture war dog whistle about states' rights and governmental overreach instead of saying "we deserve to own people."
Most of those who fought for the Confederacy did not own slaves and truly believed these lies, al the more when thousands of them died. It was Americans hating Americans and killing them because they didn't question the rationale behind the decisions that pushed the nation into its bloodiest war.
I recommend Erik Larsen's latest book The Demon of Unrest to anyone who is interested in how exactly we got to the point of civil war in the US. People seem to be bringing it up all the time these days, but if you probe them you might find that it's the same hollow diversionary messaging brought to us by those who want no strictures on what (and whom) they can own.
Agree with your factual points. They are indisputable. Suspect if he could do a redux he would to particular areas. Is possible he will come to understand more about binary aka the fallacy of the excluded middle and while doing so better understand while a coin has two sides there is one and only one edge, truth.
He was a fairly new filmmaker at this time, and let's remember that he had a huge list of sponsors. Bank of America, The Corporation for Public Broadcasting and PBS. Financial support for the original broadcast of The Civil War was provided by General Motors Corporation, The National Endowment for the Humanities, The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, The Arthur Vining Davis Foundations and The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
Prior to this he'd done the Brooklyn Bridge and Huey Long as well as an American Experience on Lindbergh. He hadn't really tackled race or misinformation, something he tried to rectify in Jazz and the story of Jack Johnson.
I am sure he would revise this if he could, or at least give Shelby Foote less airtime (and give Barbara Fields, a Black woman and the only voice that discredits the lost cause narrative, much more.) There aren't any do-overs, and that horse has left the barn.
Will the nation endure this next election? It's already teetering because the judiciary is both corrupt and untouchable.
Agree. It is next to impossible to ignore the sponsors' spoken and unspoken influence on such a project as well as it was his first all in US History. Correct if am wrong, didn't he do something akin to a first person interview post-production or is my recall wacko?
Q: Will the nation endure this next election? It's already teetering because the judiciary is both corrupt and untouchable.
A. Dunno. Do know there is one advantage ~indigenous~ enjoy no other person does, safe havens in country, and to the north and south. As critical, enuff know the safe passages to those havens and long prepared for the probability of turning on one another again especially when there is no foreign outlet to satisfy the thirst and appetite for blood.
Yes to The Demon of Unrest.
Yes! To The Demon of Unrest.
He is one of the great historical writers of our time. Stephen Ambrose and James Bradley are prone to make assumptions driven by conclusions that they reached from other assumptions that often prove to be based on something other than historical record, but Larsen never does that. As to Shelby Foote, I think his history is about as sound as all of those statues of Johnny Reb that you see in the South.
Agree. Some historians know well history is not theirs, and was etched in stone exactly as it unfolded. They are the stewards of history and are responsible for its safekeeping. Nothing more. Is a humbling responsibility and duty.
Others claim history is carried on ~wind ~that only they hear.
I understand this criticism.
Thanks!
“It is the storytellers who make us what we are, who create history, create memory and meaning.” Chinua Achebe (paraphrase as recalled from oral interview)
As an ~indigenous~ we search for storytellers beyond our kind. We long knew oral history as told by a [sanctioned] storyteller far exceeds the written word of heavily edit/streamlined text books.
Lucian is a storyteller as is Ken Burns. It is a gift. In English or Greek, storytelling is ~poetry~ at its finest.
Thanks.
Thank you brother
amazing speech.
Great Share!
Mr. Burns is rarely credited for being an extraordinary interdisciplinarian. Few can do what he did (style and substance) in 20 minutes. That includes knowing hoomans ability to fully absorb, process, recall, and apply degrade circa 22min. He reiforced his talk by repeating the word listen. Is a stronger word than most give it credit.
I watched his interview outlining his deep concern for the country. Very powerful.
It's because he is so gifted I think it is all the more incumbent that he do it correctly, but even restricting oneself to historical documents can be fraught with peril because eventually it's all about the editing. Geoffrey Ward and Lynn Novick also bear responsibility for these films, the good and bad both.