Why Gods and Generals is Neo-Confederate Propaganda" (Part 2) - Atun-Shei Reaction
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ย. 2024
- See the original video by Atun-Shei here - • Why Gods and Generals ...
My other reactions to his videos here:
Was it REALLY the War of Northern Aggression? - • Was it REALLY the War ...
Did the Confederacy have better generals? - • Did the CONFEDERACY Ha...
Was Sherman a War Criminal? - • Was Sherman a WAR CRIM...
Links:
patreon - / vth
merch store - vth-store-3.cr...
Instagram - / vloggingthroughhistory
travel gofundme - www.gofundme.c...
Discord - / discord
Twitter - / thehistoryguy25
For business inquiries contact: vloggingthroughhistory@gmail.com
my history/strategy gaming channel - / @thehistoryguy
Special Thanks to the following who are the official sponsors of this channel:
Tier 6 - Christian Graves, Elijah Norrick, Han Pol, John Molden, Levi Stevenson, Ziv, Fernando Alonzo
Tier 5 - Edward Guest, Austin Powell, D-Rock, Grant Nystrom, Drunk Binary, J.E. Sandoval, John Ivester
YT Sponsors: Insane, Scar 22, Griffen, that one guy, Driftiest follower
Tier 4 - Adam Telladira, Anthony DeFedele, Charles Grist, Derek Wohl, Graham Brown, Kelly Moneymaker, Kryštof Kotásek, Odins_Martyr, Samuel Enns, Shoulder Devil, Sándor Nagy, Scott Miller, Scripted Samurai
Tier 3 - Rafal Dubas, Matthew Calderwood, Kyle Hosea, Brandon Grams, Qethsegol, Robin Svensson, Austin White, Chris Curtis, John Molden, Peter Gadja, Raoul Kunz, Typhon, SGTMcAllen, David Storey, Cabo, Sephiroth94, Mikael Elevant, Andreas Christensen, Nate Dogg, Mathew Schrader, Nash Zahm, Jared Mackowski, Logan Cale, Stefan Garza, Zyndel Payne, Bran Flakes, Trunks, Brently Roberson, not me, Leo Strato, James Guyett, Michael Wisebaker, ZJ Johnson, Charles Schwab, WarHistoryBuffz, Wes Wilkins, The Real Larson, Samuel Elliott, J.L.Tillaeo
#CivilWar #History #Reaction
Although I think Atun-Shei is dismissive of criticism and strays from his main claim, I still agree with his claim that Gods and Generals does portray the Confederacy in a very sanitized way, which is very concerning. You made the point that many of the things in the film did happen, which is true but I think Atun-Shei's problem with the film and its director isn't what it gets wrong but rather what it chooses to display and what it chooses to omit. As a hypothetical let's say a film is made that shows Winston Churchill as a heavy drinker, overeater, and a imperialist and showed Adolf Hitler as a vegetarian, excellent orator, and a proud german, this film wouldn't be inaccurate technically but would still be dangerously inaccurate and seemingly pro-fascist. Either way I love your content and hope this doesn't discourages you from making more content about Atun-Shei's stuff.
Yeah, Gods and Generals would've worked better if it were just a biographical movie about Stonewall Jackson, if they wanted to make a movie that portrayed confederates in a sympathetic light, they should've either gone with average confederate soldiers who weren't rich and didn't own slaves or made it about James Longstreet. If the goal was to make the average confederate more sympathetic to a modern viewer, then the film should've been more about the fact confederates were conscripted and threatened with execution if they refused, or portrayed the intensity of the battles they fought in and the hopelessness of their situation and the fact so many were forced to fight for a cause as malevolent as slavery.
@@homelessjesse9453 Of course, great movie by the way.
still it's a topic that I don't think gets brought up enough, being a white southerner who spoke out against secession or against slavery was very dangerous in the confederacy, they could even be thrown in prison for questioning the cause of the confederacy, not helping was propaganda campaigns before and during the war by the Confederate government. Scalawags after the war were often hunted down and killed by groups like the Ku Klux Klan, White league and Red shirts militia, in a sense the antebellum south was not that different from Weimar Germany and could very easily have taken an even darker turn if things had turned out just slightly differently.
I think the film goes both ways with its propoganda. To portray Northern Soldiers as crusaders fighting to end slavery is also not accurate. The Combat is sanitized (not sure why that is so common in civil war films) . The accuracy regarding Lee and Jackson is relatively good...it should be noted that one of the foremost experts on the subject of Jackson was the senior historical advisor for the film. the only thing i saw that was inaccurate regarding lee was his uniform while addressing the Virginia Legislature...he wasn't in Uniform he was wearing a black silk suit as he had already resigned from the Army. The Jim Lewis story arc came out of left field...not accurate at all.
@@drewdurbin4968 to be fair, most war movies are sanitized. They romanticize the combat itself and downplay any political motives that might color the reason for those battles. Even modern movies have fallen prey to this, such as Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down, or Hurt Locker.
The fundamental problem is that film is art, and art is subjective by its nature. Context of why a film is created is paramount to what one will draw from it.
If the creator of the film has denied their intentions, one never can truly satisfy their suspicions to the contrary.
“A persons education does not protect them from criticism”
*RESPECT*
Yes ...
... unfortunately many think they can extrapolate this to natural science and conclude that any any doubt of scientific results is valid and that you "just come at it with different perspectives".
That's really not how natural science works. The validity of arguments in science is a bit more rigid than in the humanities. There's potentially a lot more objectivity in the consensus position in natural science.
@@pm71241 I think there is some sense of things you shouldn't do with story telling and film that you can say is more right than other things, but it's not wrong to have preferences and opinions. What I don't like is that experts have lost a lot of respect, regardless of their subject, because people don't like being told what to do or think. If you want to change a particular mode of thinking or understand it better, even if you disagree with it, then do your own research. That's part of the problem these days. People either don't research enough, or find sources that only back up their own biases. Sometimes there are more objective truths out there. You are welcome to challenge them, but don't challenge them without understanding them first and take as many perspectives as you can first. Most importantly: SAVE YOUR SOURCES.
@@adsventuresome7511 yup
Does* Dose is an amount of medicine
In my experience the smartest/most relevant people in a conversation are people who are from outside the academic discipline. An engineer might have a better understanding of a historical concept because they understand technology, a historian might be better at economic policy because they have a better framework for certain events than an economist etc. Stating your "Strength" is the thing you studied in school, says you haven't done much since college.
It doesn't help that Ron Maxwell did "Copperhead" in 2013, a film where the abolitionists are mostly insane, violent and irrational. A Northern teacher forces a child to change his name on the spot in her classroom cause he is named "Jeff" like the CSA president. And the source material is Confederate apologia. A deliberate choice and a suspect choice.
The man sold his soul for a rotten ideology.
Aaand it bombed!
The story is about inter-family conflict and the tragedy that can result from it, as well as the idea that good people can still be complete assholes. The controversy is the protagonist is an antiwar Democrat who could be painted as a confederate sympathizer. If the roles were reversed, and an abolitionist family was beset by pro confederate neighbors, would we consider that pro-union propaganda?
Well, yes, it would be soft propaganda - but that doesn't mean either even wouldn't have happened in real life.
There are nice people with fucked up political convictions and assholes that are, politically, on "the right side of history".
@@Andrew-wv7qpthe differnece is that the south was fighting for slavery, and the north no, i can harldy see as propaganda a movie where a family that are opposed to slavery is attacked by people who support it
I appreciate you giving your opinion even when you know its not the most popular one. Also that you tell us your own bias and upbringing, it shows that you are not trying to discredit anyone, but rather give your perspective as a whole. Love the videos
Yes
Others (Mr Beat) admit to personal bias but then criticize others (more conservative historians or storytellers) for being biased. That is called "hypocrisy." Many history TH-camrs present in a condescending way. VTH is one of the few who isn't that and that's a bit of why I appreciate his videos so much.
@@defendska2158 Well said, I agree completely
It only proves that he don't see no wrong with confederate point of view
@@defendska2158 very well said.
Every single civilian role in this film is pure cringe. "Oh give them the victory!!!!" *puke*
Agree. Same was true for the deleted civilian scenes from Gettysburg
"To the sultry, balmy, Cringe"
*sips lemonade*
That's "vic'try" to you suh!
you and atun shei should actually do a collab just like with mr. Beat and together rank all the civil war generals. I think you guys have a lot in common and it would be great to watch!
I agree with many of your points here, but Gods and General’s portrayal of slavery did make me think twice. It’s very questionable to portray slavery in such a way to me; it’s so selectively edited that it does come across to me like there’s an agenda. The part about the cook being freed because of the kindness of his owner is especially dubious to me. Dude is talking about how bad the union was, that seems super weird. To me personally, that seems so off it just taints the entire whole as having an obvious agenda
Agreed.
Listen to ex slaves accounts of their masters before they get taken down from TH-cam. Most of them already have. You realize real quickly the worlds not so black and white.
@@FimiliarGalaxy9 found the neo confederate
@@gary9346 lol no.
@@FimiliarGalaxy9 yeah. Right.
"A person's education does not preclude them from criticism" best quote ever and could not be more relevant
And ESPECIALLY where the Civil War is concerned. How can anyone who takes an interest in the ACW believe that education makes a person 'more correct'? Almost all of the famous generals in the ACW attended military academies, and some of them were just terrible at the art of war. Hell, I believe that there are a substantial amount of lay people who could have performed better than McClellan at Antietam.
@@josephmckenna5760 I don't think that an education makes a person "more correct," it just gives them a better understanding of the subject. Sure, an educated person may be incapable in the field they studied. However, the odds are that an educated person operating within their field of study is going to perform better than a lay person.
Granted, an educated person that thinks their diploma makes them better than those that don't have it is a terrible person. I've met some barely functional people who think themselves superior simply because they are a PhD.
@@gobblox38 Here's the thing- in your main subject of expertise your knowledge should be at least repected for what it is rather than dismissed as opinion. Not everything is opinion- and that's something I've had arguments with very stubborn people about. Now, that doesn't mean you can't have your opinions and be respected for them, but maybe consider another person's knowledge isn't attacking your opinion to destroy it, but that maybe you are possibly misinformed. Imo it makes you a more rounded person if you are willing to hear out the other person, then disagree.
@@josephmckenna5760
Was Westpoint a military academy or a military engineers company
@@thodan467 That is an excellent point that West Point did focus on engineering, but I do feel that my point stands that these men were expected to lead soldiers into battle if if ever happened (and their dominance of the higher ranks in the ACW confirms this) and regardless of knowledgeable they might be (McCLellan is a perfect example) their ability to apply their knowledge could be hampered by their personal biases/limitations.
Just goes to show what kind of community you have cultivated on this channel. A highly contentious topic, and yet overwhelmingly civil discourse
I'm pretty sure Atun-Shei subsequently walked this take back, somewhat. This was something of a rant by a relatively new TH-camr with a small number of subscribers. His viewpoint is clearly fueled to some extent by 'the zeal of the converted'.
Tribalism is at its worst after a switch of tribes.
Yeah I feel like he’s calmed down a bit
Some what I'll admit watching from the outside in, a non American never learned about the war. Watched the film also Ng with Gettysburg before I kinda went deep into the history. I would say the film definitely projects the lost cause ideals, almost no mention of slavery.
a goodly portion of his presentation back then I think is also him trying to do a Mr Plinkett impression but not fully being able to divorce the character from himself to the same degree as that hack fraud mike stoklasa, so it comes across more ham fisted - saying "fuck you ron" is a very pinkett type read, but coming from a more personal place
Mixed with a little anti-Trump bias
I would suggest checking out Atun-Shei's three-part critique of the movie Gettysburg. I think you'll like his attitude much better there; he's still honest in his opinions (both in its portrayal of history and in its filmmaking) without being quite as aggressive. He seems to have matured a bit in between making this video and making those ones.
His Gettysburg videos are amazing, and yeah he mellowed down a bit when making those
You know, when I first found your channel I instantly fell in love with it as a history fan. As I’ve watched more of your videos and heard you talk I’ve come to the belief that you and me have very different beliefs (me being an atheist and pretty far left) and from what I’ve gathered (you being a Christian and moderate/conservative) but I have to say I love this channel more than any other history channel. You are always extremely fare in your opinions and acknowledge bias, which has helped me do that same. Not to mention how much I’ve learned and how knowledgeable you are. Please keep up the content and I look forward to every video! -Your history friend from Seattle Washington
Thank you Steven. We share a common love for history. That's what matters here.
@@VloggingThroughHistory Oh... so you are conservative. Well that explains your unrecognized bias to try to downplay the prominence of the Lost Cause mythos in the USA which is currently actively supporting Conservatives.
@@emilywilkerson3684 I am an incredibly liberal person, and I agree with you 100% about the Lost Cause Myth. However I feel like you are making an assumption based on Vlogging Through History's(VTH) political opinions to make a false assertion of him. This is because if you watch any other content of his reacting to Atun Shei you can see he very clearly understands the Lost Cause is a myth and the war is about Slavery. So I can see how watching this video you could reach the conclusion that he is downplaying the Lost Cause, but in reality he is very clearly aware that it is a Myth and aware of the truth that the confederacy seceded for slavery, and not for the ideals of the lost cause, so he doesn't downplay the Lost Cause because it supports conservatives, because he doesn't downplay the Lost cause.
@@emilywilkerson3684what’s funny is VTH’s argument in this case is much liberal than atun Shei’s. The video is more of an historian vs a filmmaker. VTH is being nitpicky about historical facts while Atun Shei is being nitpicky about the filmmaking and possible message. VTH already stated that he never believed in the lost cause, Atun shei on the other hand used to believe in it however so I don’t really understand your criticism.
@@emilywilkerson3684 You poor MSNBC viewer.
I find the problem is that the movie is giving reasons for the war WHILE omiting the primary one i.e. slavery. The question is if this was intentionally or if Ron Maxwell is only trying to show their perspective; wrong as it may be. Atun-Shei has a bit of an overreaction but I see where he is coming from with everything in context.
The longest day however is about world war two but isnt touching at the situation of the holocaust AT ALL so the comparison doesnt really work. For example if Gods an Generals would have kept with the military history the reaction to it would have been different. Anyway thank you for making this reaction and giving your viewpoint which is interesting.
This
Slavery wasn't brought up in the war until late into it, it was used as a political move by lincoln. Lincoln goes on record several times saying he has "no intention to free the american negro." It was a band-aid to validate the deaths of the war.
@@m.j.e.5245 I believe the primary purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation was to prevent European support of the Confederacy by making the focus of the war the abolition of slavery.
@@m.j.e.5245 several southern states explicitly stated that they seceded to preserve slavery before the first shots of the Civil War.
@@m.j.e.5245 Cornerstone Speech. nuff said.
also multiple secession declarations and the fact that the Southern constitution enforced slavery on member states, as well as the CSA goal of EXPANDING Slavery...
While I understand that you don't see the movie in the same way he does, I also think it is fair to say that this film *does in fact* appeal to believers in *The Lost Cause* myth - and that it does so for the variety of reasons mentioned in his video.
@@night6724 Lincoln never said the war wasn't about slavery. So did Davis originally. You claim there is no Lost Cause myth? It certainly is real. It has been well documented even back to its origin. Search up the Wikipedia page and go look at the citations and page content too.
@@night6724 Maybe you should stop lying. The United Daughters of the Confederacy absolutely wrote and influenced the writing of many iterations of textbooks in the South to portray the Confederacy in a better light. This organization still exists today. Your denial of the existence of this organization and the damage it did with its deliberate reframing of the Civil War shows either your ignorance, or deliberate intent to support their work.
@@night6724 Google it for yourself. There's no shortage of reputable sources laying out the campaign of the UDC to whitewash history.
@@Me-yq1fl Secession isn't a declaration of war, it's a statement of wanting to leave an organization that you are a part of. And as for Lincoln, this is directly quoted from his first inaugural address: "I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them." - Abraham Lincoln
so film theory 101 the main purpose of the score is to tell the audience what to feel at any given time
sounds like atun shei wanted propaganda.
@@m.j.e.5245 what are you on about? Editing/scoring/juxtaposition of shots/ect in film is about meta textually trying to get the audience to feel a certain way.
@@m.j.e.5245 POUR IT IN ON EM BOYZ
@@shadoeboi212This guy completely lacks the film literacy to make the claims he is. It's embarrassing. Film is literally a language he doesn't speak & he seems to think, because he can't hear that there are actual phrases w/ explicit expressions of intentionality, his interpretation is just as valid as that of fluent speakers. Also kind of odd for a historian not to be able to recognize the time-honored telltale signature of propaganda when it's staring him in the face.
I believe there’s a difference between this movie’s portrayal of slavery and longest day’s portrayal of the Holocaust. Namely, they didn’t portray the Holocaust in longest day. They wanted to focus on this battle and left contemplation and depiction of the Holocaust to other movies. They didn’t have Jewish characters chumming it up with Nazi soldiers, sharing a cigarette and lamenting how things ain’t really all that bad for Jews in Germany. Gods and Generals chose to include very specific slave caricatures that seem to endorse an idea that slavery wasn’t really all that bad and that it was incidental to the confederate cause, while not including any enslaved characters who aren’t thrilled with their enslaved status. It wouldn’t be anywhere near this much of an issue if there just hadn’t been any enslaved characters in Gods and Generals. With a topic like this it’s either do it right or don’t show it at all. A critical part of the lost cause myth is propagating the false narrative that slavery was a benign institution and that most African Americans were better off enslaved and in my opinion, this movie does FAR too much to endorse that notion, which I believe is possibly dangerous. Did Robert Maxwell set out to create a piece of neo-confederate propaganda? I would wager not. Nonetheless, his own biases slipped their way in (as it seems that Maxwell himself IS a lost cause believer) and turned it into essentially a lost cause propaganda movie.
Completely, I love VTH but that seems to be a recurring blind spot with historical fiction
@CP. there were scenes I cringe at but I only saw this movie from the perspective of Jackson didn’t see it as Lost Cause propaganda
@@arlonfoster9997 I explained what I meant in the comment. The Lost Cause mythology is a pretty expansive canon of ahistorical beliefs, but one of the cornerstones is on the nature of southern slavery, reimagining it as a mostly benign institution that benefited both master and slave in relatively equal measure. It imagines that most slaves were perfectly content with their lives and that the masters were guided by providence to provide the best life possible for their subjects. This movie contains implicit endorsements through the few black characters it chooses to include. It’s 3 most relevant black characters are a former slave who had such a great relationship with his master he gave him his freedom, an enslaved cook who supports the confederacy and believes he will be freed if he just works hard and does his duty, and an enslaved woman who cares for her master’s children like they were her own and is treated by them with equal kindness in return. Surely each of these individual archetypes existed historically, but the fact that these are the only 3 black characters to be focused on is more insidious than if there just weren’t any black characters at all. It conveys an image that this was the typical experience of an African American in antebellum bondage.
Setting slavery aside, which is really hard to do here, there’s still lots to critique on the issue of endorsing and propagating Lost Cause canon. The northern generals are universally either corrupt or incompetent while the southern generals are universally honorable and noble. There’s more to dive into, but frankly the treatment of the black characters is enough to pretty definitively critique the movie as Lost Cause propaganda, even if that wasn’t the intent of the creator. As I stated in my original comment I believe these found their way into the movie not out of some malicious or dishonest conspiracy, but because Robert Maxwell actually believes these to be true and sees Civil War history through the Lost Cause paradigm.
@@CP-hn1zy I get your point and I’m not sure whether Maxwell directly or indirectly had Lost Cause propaganda in this film. But you gotta remember this part of the war in the eastern theater from 181-1863 the Union Generals were incompetent and some of them corrupt. The south was doing well in this part of the war that is why the northern generals Burnside and Hooker are portrayed as incompetent. Which historically I don’t think that was always the case. Kinda like the myth how the Hessians were incompetent and drunk at Trenton during the Revolution in 1776, but in real life they were just disorganized. That was true for the Union historically.
@@CP-hn1zy you do realize that regardless of whether or not you disagree with the north or the south, both sides were just people they were individuals with flaws and virtues. They were not inherently good or inherently bad
Sorry I’m late to the party but I need to address the big failing I see with your argument. Namely that you make statements along the lines that the film isn’t omitting the issues with slavery because we wouldn’t see any in the film. If this film were like Gettysburg and only focused on battles I would 100% agree but in fact we do spend time on plantations in this film and slaves (especially any being treated like property) are notably absent. The director went out of his way to include scenes of slaves wishing their master off to war worrying about their safety but not a single scene of a slave being mistreated or treated like property. That is what I believe the largest failing of the film is. It could have avoided including any slaves at all but instead decided to include the most warped and frankly comical representation of them that it could have
Kind of a throw back to the early days of Hollywood were every black character was a caricature and stereotype.
"I have a great deal of respect for anybody who grows up in a certain belief system...and through maturity and through experience comes to refute something that they later discover to be wrong." -VTH
THIS.
It is a rare thing for many individuals to accept when you are wrong and improve
Negation isnt correct processing!
And negation isnt maturity !
Many former Neo Nazis become left extrem!
Honestly, I'd love to hear you and Atun talk all about History and even seeing other others perspectives.
And to those, Atun in a Q&A video described his lost cause life and how he changed.
I don't remember him discussing his lost cause history. I remember him discussing growing up in Massachusetts, working as a Living Historian in the Burg, and why he lives in New Orleans. Do you remember which video it was where he discussed his lost cause past?
@@TheMacJew Here it is, I could have misheard or didn't see it from a certain perspective. I think he talks a bit about it at 11:40 th-cam.com/video/pC8GAVyZ2dE/w-d-xo.html
@@ShonenXIV thank you.
He definitely mentions it in one of his civil war videos at the end. He even shows he made civil war fan films. I found it, he talks about it in his God and Generals review near the end at th-cam.com/video/S3E2FdedPwU/w-d-xo.html
The personality point is interesting. Atun shei is a millennial from Massachusetts who isn't super religious while you are a slightly older Ohioan who is clearly religious. I think that's where the whole F you Ron Maxwell divide comes in mainly, because I think most people my age and younger would think of that as funny, instead of rude.
Rude or funny, it’s hard to display such emotion and vitriol and still come across as somehow objective.
@@VloggingThroughHistory fair.
@@VloggingThroughHistory a good point
As a regular viewer of Atun-shei, I think it's actually useful to hear out someone else's opinion on his videos. It allows me to make a choice about him from multiple angles, and I'm glad about that.
Something I think we all need. I know I certainly do.
It's these kind of videos and takes that show why you're one of my favorite historian youtubers. You really know how to set your perspective and bias aside and understand why people did what they did, not just fill in the blanks yourself. Keep up the great work and I'll be looking forward to your next Vicksburg episodes!
I don't care for Atun-Shei's attitude much either, but I do think he's right about this movie. All the directing choices, music swells, etc combined with the soft friendly portrayal of slavery, plus the harkening back to the old "blacks in the confederate army" argument, I think it was intentionally painting a rosy picture of the confederate army personally.
honestly i think the female slave damns slavery in the most effective way possible!
Her owners weren´t cruel, abusive etc they treated her reasonably but still
They should have made it clear that Lee did support black soldiers but the slave holders for the most part did not. The movie gets so much right regarding individuals within the larger story (except Jim Louis which was disgraceful as im pretty sure he was a slave and was not Employed by Jackson). It also gets so much wrong regarding the institution of slavery hell it doesnt even mention its role in bringing on the war....the nation had been in constant debate for the better part of 30 years about the question of slavery. Civil war films in general seem to always create a strict dichotomy that favors a particular side which is a horrible way to portray any war especially a civil war.
@@night6724
We?
@@night6724
sorry, but enough Southerners told me it was about states rights, exploitation of the south etc. and slavery was not a main issue...
My grandfather fought for the conferderates and he didn´t own slaves and didn´t fight for slavery....
Except he did, because slavery was the reason.
I´m european btw so WE?
@@drewdurbin4968 Lee was in favor of black soldiers only near the end of the war, which this film doesn't cover. Up until then, Lee happily complied with all the fugitive slave and kidnapping policies of the Confederacy. Thousands of black people were kidnapped into slavery during his Gettysburg Campaign on his approval.
I completely understand where you’re coming from. As a young history buff, I grew up with a Southern father who convinced me that the lost cause myth was true. It took until I was about 19 or 20 to finally really rethink how I thought about the real raw history of the civil war. It also helped that I was in the classroom in a diverse environment with multiple perspectives on many different issues so I decided to rethink my opinions on specific topics. I encourage everyone to go into everything with an open mind and be open to having your mind changed if you end up being wrong.
I'm sure we don't agree on politics at all but I love your videos, and appreciate your openness about your own biases, and sticking to the facts when we have them.
Same.
_"It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows."_
- Epictetus
As someone who also grew up and spent many years firmly believing the Lost Cause myth (and being further right-of-center than I feel comfortable elaborating on) I do understand some of where Atun-Shei is coming from. Whenever I see movies like Gods and Generals, media that glorifies some atrocity by virtue of bias or bad writing, I have a knee-jerk reaction to boil that piece down to simple evils and hate it. It is easy for me to unwittingly strip away all other aspects of a film or novel and focus solely on the perceived morally maligned message.
But for the same reasons I no longer am right-of-center or believe in the Lost Cause myth, I feel the need to attempt to actively fight my bias and give something as fair a shake as I can possibly muster. I was wrong once, why am I so sure I am entirely correct now? I always leave myself open to the possibility that a belief I hold may be incorrect and welcome people to debate me. Not so I can prove them wrong, but so I might glean something worthwhile from their perspective.
Gods and General hardly seems intentionally propagandic, and as someone with an English background it appears more to be a failure in the writing mixed with some possible passive biases from Maxwell (though I cannot definitively claim this). The depiction of slavery was definitely abhorrent and a stain on my opinion of Maxwell as a writer/director regardless of reason. But even I recognize that the movie isn't intended as some sort of rally call for neo-Confederates that Atun-Shei seems to believe it is. His inability to see past his initial reaction has left the movie to be painted as some sort of bogeyman in the same way many people right-of-center may see anything remotely socialist. It taints all the neutral points of the film and creates imagined evils lurking in every corner, evident by Atun-Shei's eagerness to cherry-pick scenes and excise parts of history that do not suit his narrative.
My recommendation to all, regardless of ideology, is to find where your biases lie and actively put them aside when trying to examine something critically. If your beliefs are well founded you should arrive at the same conclusion. Otherwise it becomes an invaluable part of your learning and growth.
@@CheddarBro I'll agree with the second part, but I have not read the book itself and cannot judge how closely Maxwell stuck to it. Though the author of the book, Jeff Shaara, is quoted as saying thus:
_"It's enormously different, it's radically different from the book. There are characters in the film that do not exist in the book, and a great many characters in the book that never made it to the film. It's just an entirely different story, and I have to tell you, I've heard from literally thousands of people through my website, and I get emails every day and try to be as accessible as I can, and the overwhelming percentage of those that wrote me said, 'How could you let them butcher your book like that?' I have no answer to that because I had no control or power to change what came up on the screen."_
Several other war films also use the score to convey how the opponent forces are viewing or feeling about an event. A good example is in We Were Soldiers, how somber tones are used when a Viet-Cong soldier is writing a letter home and the foreboding rising tone for the ending scene when the Viet-Cong general returns to the mountain LZ, from how history is often taught we instinctively perceive the opponent as vicious or heartless, the score helps many viewers to add a level of humanity to a person in a situation we’re taught about from the other side. Letters from Iwo Jima also uses its score to help convey the emotional impact of many moments.
Hello VTH, thank you very much for your great videos. I find you very sympathetic and your comments are shaped by knowledge but also by balance.
I know that we think differently politically, the more I appreciate how much you respect and accept other opinions and talk about them without aggression. That's a character trait that I miss in a lot of people. I also like to discuss and listen to others and consider whether I'm wrong or whether I have better arguments. I think we're very similar on that point.
Keep up the good work and I hope you don't just meet with Mr. Beat, but maybe with Atun-Shei.
Many greetings from Germany
You’re truly an inspiration for us all with shared or contrasting opinions. You show us with your perspective that truth and reason must always prevail.
One of the things that I have learned over several years of my life is the ability to recognize that there are very few things in our mortal world that are strictly back and white. And when there is a grey area then it means there is going to be multiple sides to the story. It is easier to simplify life down to 1's and 0's but... that isn't really how life works. It is a recipe for continuous conflict. When people can accept that the grey areas exist, then it seems to make for more civil discussions and lives.
Nice dog whistle there.
Yeah, probably a common sense dog whistle. Why are the weakest people the most offended? You are weak sir. The inability to understand others is what you abhor, yet you do the exact same. Maybe you're the confederate. There was no documented party switch btw.
@@m.j.e.5245 yes it is an excellent dog whistle, for what complexity is there in chattel slavery specifically? Weakest people offended? Another dog whistle which allows you you defend horrific acts under the guise of having the intestinal fortitude to attempt to be neutral towards them. You are a disgusting individual- I see what you are going for with the party switch bullshit.
@@gary9346 What you don't understand is there was more to the South leaving the Union than the threat of slavery. It's just the final straw based on fear of losing than any factual evidence of it being abolished. But the South had a lot of grievances with the Federal Gov. at this time that also contributed to leaving. Which is what is meant by a lot of grey areas with the South.
@@Kayvel54 if that was the case, they would have mentioned them in their love letter to the US when they seceded. The only thing they put to paper was slavery.
I think the most important thing for everyone to note from these videos, the viewers and the content creators is that minds aren’t changed through shouting. Forcing your opinions on people makes them less likely to heed it. The best thing to do is calmly express your point of view and never should you attack the person for their point of view. No argument I’ve ever had has been won through anger. It has always been won through calm discourse and understanding. I love both these channels and it think both channels are at fault in this way.
I don’t think that Gods and Generals is merely how the south viewed the american civil war but rather how those who think that the confederate cause was just would portray it today. From the depiction of slavery to the score this film tries to paint an modern ideal of the CSA, as for example black people would not have been given screentime in such a movie if the technology would have been available back then, at the cost of the historic reality. I am sorry, but claiming that gods and generals is just the southern POV and therefore ok isn’t different from claiming that the Wochenschau is just the 3. Reich from the german POV
I loved your content for a long time now. I bexame a member because of it. I like atun shei and i think it would be interesting if you and him had a discussion on things. You both have passion for history and the civil war. So I think it would be nice to see you both come to an understanding of both sides maybe.
Keep up the content.
From will chester from the UK 😊
In my opinion, I think you are looking at this through the lens of a historian very familiar with the topic, which is completely understandable. I think the real problem with this movie is that a non-history buff could easily interpret this movie without having the full context. Sure, most of this did actually happen, but it's portrayed in a way that could easily mislead an uninformed viewer. So, I guess thats my one challenge to you, try viewing this topic through the eyes of a non-history nerd instead of as a history nerd like we all are lol.
Sorry, not to beat a dead horse (well, it's coughing up blood), but as has been pointed out this was the first of three books. Had this been completed into a cohesive work, the "loyal" slave characters (around the 17:00 mark) would be revisited in the second half, setting up an overwhelmingly emotional moment when you see the change on their faces upon realizing what they had deeply suppressed all their lives justifying the circumstances of their existence. Even more powerful than Chiwetel Ejiofor's reaction (the best ever) in 12 Years a Slave. In fact, that could set up the "all is lost" moment followed by victorious climax, at least for that subplot. Dammit I gotta' stop thinking about this stuff.
I grew up in the south, I saw the "unkind to the south" stamps in my books, or "kind to the south" if it was pro-southern history. I heard the bs "it was for states rights" arguments and believed them along time, it took me moving away before i started reading about many of the historical accounts and read the secession articles. I can see his point about how the movie is pro south propaganda, and i see your point that its about how they thought in the time.
I think though the reason that movie strikes such a tone, is because should we LET movies be made that show that mindset in any sort of positive light? without the Equal exposure of the truth and reality?
Like what i mean is , the movie should of had the souths perspective, but there should of been a moment where the truth and reality of it was put distinctly forth... that is what was missing, there was this "no it was for our states right and to protect against northern agression" which may indeed have been a reason for many soldiers, but the truth is... it was about slavery... the articles of secession made that extremely clear, and there should of been a "nah thats bullshit" callout in the movie.
Whats happening in the south right now is that myth of states rights and northern agression, its being taught as historical fact... without any caveat, no extra explanation of slavery... its a white wash of history... and that movie while it is expressing feelings felt at the time, allows that sentiment to go untested or undiluted with the clear evidence of the wars real cause, the continuation of a deplorable practice and dark blemish on our nation.
So i get his thought on the movie, and i can very much understand your point. I think both of you make very well thought out and structured commentary on the topic, but i kinda fall on Atun-shei's perspective. There should of been some kind of dark comparisson to counter the pro-south narrative in the movie. Some gleaning "no you don't get to try to claim the moral high ground, this is what was really happening" imagery.
Of course its confederate propaganda so is any other movie or tv show that shows a nation or person opposing the US
One of the things that hurt this film that people don't discuss is that it is only a part of what was supposed to be a trilogy. Gettysburg, Gods & Generals, and The Last Full Measure. Because of the box office failure of Gods & Generals, the third film was never made. I wonder if that had been completed whether the movies would be viewed differently.
@Trade Bum Simmons it is specifically taught as a war of states rights and a "overburden of taxation" on the south.
We were so many "slavery was hard and wrong, but slave owners did not mistreat their slaves it was in their best interest to not beat/whip the slaves as those were your workforce and you needed them for the plantations"
there were books about how slave life was hard but happy... etc..
I am a military brat and lived in New England the South TX and CA and I think both sides had propaganda and did pretty messed up things and some good things that’s how human beings are
I’m glad you acknowledged the lies by omission argument we all made, but I’m not sure comparing Gods and Generals to “the longest day “ makes sense. I think the Longest Day is much closer to Gettysburg in that it chooses to focus more on the military history than the social/political background of the depicted events. (I’ll admit I haven’t seen that movie in years so maybe I’m wrong). Few people took issue with Gettysburg’s omissions about slavery because the film never really tried to comment on any of the reasons behind the war.
Gods and Generals, though, DID try to comment on that stuff. Omitting slavery from Gettysburg or the Holocaust from the Longest Day is fine because those things are irrelevant to what those films are trying to talk about. But slavery is VERY relevant to the exact topics Gods and Generals chooses to examine, and deliberately omitted.
I’d recommend watching Atun’s later work. He mellowed down and matured more, as he went on.
His history of cinema and the magical aspect of it is extremely well done, and really captures his passion for film making
@@night6724 I still stand by the opinion that his video about the magic of Cinema is delightful and well made
@@night6724 ok, fair enough
@@night6724 He's not a Southerner. He's from Massachusetts.
He recently released a video called "In Defense of Puritanism"'; it's a bit of a dry video to react to in terms of visuals and witticisms, but the topics it covers are things I think you know a lot about and I'd be interested in your thoughts.
The Witchfinder General is the funniest internet character ever!
A bit dry , sure , but it sure is super SUPER surreal and trippy
Haven’t even watched this yet and somehow I already like it; your channel really is great
Appreciate that Jeremy. Glad you’re here.
I'm from Ireland. Recently I have taken an interest in the American civil war. I like watching your channel because you fill in a lot of the gaps left in other videos, while still acknowledging your biases.
I actually really appreciate these two videos because I was able to look back at Atun-Shei’s work with a different perspective. A lot of his points don’t really hold up in hindsight. I like some of his other videos much more, his Following Bienville in particular is kind of like his version of a “history on location” and might be more enjoyable/entertaining. Thanks and have a good one!
I agree with this comment 100 percent.
Yeah, I think he messed up a little with this video but I adore some of his other stuff.
All the videos about King Phillips war are fantastic as well
As a non American his point definitely still stand, non American aren't exposed to Either sides. So as someone who's just watched the film I can attest to it's disingenuous film making
I find his video on gods and generals just too all over the place.
Using the Longest Day to counter the omission argument is not a valid counter because the “omission of the Holocaust” ignores the fact that said film focuses squarely on the D-Day landings where anything Holocaust-related has no real impact that would warrant it being included. It’s not like the forces in Omaha stumbled onto a concentration camp that day or anything.
Meanwhile, many of the omissions in God and Generals are things that would’ve come into play in the events of the film.
If you put Gettysburg and this movie together it is very difficult NOT to see the heavy influence of the Lost Cause. While Gettysburg was more balanced, the southern "cause" seemed to be very much open for interpretation as Lee's generals sat around a campfire enjoying themselves debating among themselves (in the midst of horrific carnage no less). There was nary a mention that the Confederates captured and returned to slavery free blacks.
I mean there’s no reason to mention his bias from growing up then get mad when he drops an f bomb on maxwell, mans got the right to call these kinds of things out because he realizes that he has that same responsibility any content creator/ movie maker does. If you can save just one person from a false narrative then it was worth it.
I think biggest problem with Gods and Generals is that is does intentionally present the Confederate cause in a favorable light and to me I wouldn't want to see that anymore than I want to see a movie that attemps to show the Nazi's as sympathetic. I think Atun Shi takes it to 11 a lot of the time probably due to his past and a desire to reject the lost cause myth.
so you wouldnt want to watch Das Boot, possibly the greatest WW2 AND Submarine movie ever?
Was curious about your viewpoints on this video.
To address your point at 11:40 is.
Full transparency, I have not seen that movie you mentioned. But from what you just mentioned I don't feel your comparison is even close to applicable given what gods and generals shows.
It sounds like The Longest Day (correct me if I'm mistaken) takes place with a hyper focus and around D-day, and the immediate events surrounding it. The most you'd get to see negatives about the nazi regime is the treatments of the French and other peoples pressed into labor.
With gods and generals, it showed behind the scenes and seemingly tries to show daily life for those involved during the war time. It showed the plantations, it showed the people's homes who owned slaves as a fact, but they didn't show hardly any of them and what's more insulting is the ones they did show painted a more subdued and "it doesn't look like it was so bad" kind of picture.
I'm going to continue your video and I would love to hear back from you. If you do address why I feel your comparison is wrong later on in your video I will add a reply continuing my comment.
I dislike TH-cam edits because you can't see the edit history and I want people to know what I say without the possibility of dishonestly editing after the fact.
As a film, Gods and Generals reminds me of one of those stuffy, period pieces my wife always loves to watch. Ladies in waiting talking in drawing rooms with gentlemen suitors *forever*, and then, just as I’m at the end of my limits, someone bursts in to announce the Napoleon’s returned or something, and all the guys go off to war...NOW we’re talking. G&G is basically the same thing with the ratio of war stuff and the high-society hobnobbing reversed. Still manages to be boring, though, even depicting things directly related to my family’s history.
The "ladies in waiting talking in drawing rooms with gentlemen suitors *forever*" line, was perfect.
Honestly, you’d think it was a play or something!
I think the biggest difference between how you two approach the film is that Atun-shei is assuming the worst of the director, while you are much more generous (which I appreciate a lot, it’s refreshing your restraint from automatically attributing bad motives to people you disagree with).
As you said, unlike atun-shei you haven’t had to undergo a dramatic revision in your understanding of this period, and your main point about biases arising from these different backgrounds is absolutely true. But I think that it makes you a little bit oblivious to what others take away from the movie. I don’t mean that in a condescending way, just that for an audience without your historical knowledge, it’s quite easy to come away from the movie at the very least sympathising with the lost cause narrative- and I would be surprised if it was the case that maxwell didn’t himself sympathise with it a little.
Bare in mind I am from England, without emotional attachment to the civil war, and my only experience with lost cause narratives is listening to you discredit them. Of course, you point out that simply making a movie where the confederates aren’t the villains doesn’t have to mean the director supports lost cause. But I would say just because you’re not making them the villains doesn’t mean you have to make them noble/heroes, and that’s how it comes across.
I liked your point that many of the things atun is criticising maxwell for doing he himself does to persuade his youtube audience, like cherry picking scenes to juxtapose others in order to prove a point. But it still doesn’t mean that maxwell himself isn’t doing it, and you have got to ask why. And the why is because its incredibly difficult not to make confederates appear villainous when you depict the deplorable reality of their cause: upholding slavery.
I think it can be done, portraying southern confederates in a truthful way which demonstrates their humanity without concealing the evils of their culture, but it would then fall on we the audience to put ourselves in a southerners shoes, and admit to myself that I too would have fought for the confederates, and I too would probably have owned slaves given the opportunity in that place and time. But this is an uncomfortable thought most aren’t willing to admit. So the easier/cowardly option is to just not show even a hint of the brutality or immorality of slavery. I’m with you in that I don’t think maxwell does this with bad racist motives, just that to do so makes it a lot more difficult to humanise these men, which is I think his goal.
Anyway that ended up being so long, if anyone reads all this thank you. It’s a nuanced and complex period as all history is and the movie isn’t near nuanced enough. If it wants to be a plain retelling of historical events then plainly show it’s brutally too. The Northman is a perfect example where it doesn’t shy away from showing the savage cruelty of Viking raiding culture, and the protagonist isn’t above it. But the director respects his audience’s intelligence, we know it’s not endorsing the violence, and we can still follow the protagonist’s character arc knowing he is a man of his time, partaking in horrific violence of that time, and yet still possessing the same emotional conflicts as you and I.
I'd also add that historical movies, especially when they present controversial topics, should be the target of scrutiny. There is an implied idea that the cultural contribution of historical movies is compounded by the fact that they convey both a story and history. This means that directorial choices do not just serve a narrative function. They also have an educational purpose to an extent.
In this case, the directorial choices have a clear, and disturbing, leaning.
I love this particular reaction series you're doing! I subscribe to both of you and love the content! As a fellow Ohioan, student of history, this was eye opening to me. You helped me realize my own quick reaction to anything that did not have the CSA viewed negatively. I never subscribed to the Lost Cause myth, but my grandfather did and still does today. He's yankee as it can get, from Chicago and moved to Ohio, but he is without a doubt a lost causer. Moreover he loves this movie. I'm not saying one is because of the other, but there is a correlation and a perpetuity to it. I think Atun-Shei approaches this with a little to much vitriol, like a new atheist rabidly attacking religion. It's like the Dude said "You're not wrong Walter....." you probably know the rest...
I'm so similar to both of you gentlemen, lovers of history and cinema, I'm guessing on an Earth 2 or 3, my alternate self pursued film school. I am no expert, but the direction Ron Maxwell took with this film is honestly disingenuous in my worthless opinion. I loved that you pointed out the truth to all actions done by the North, to which the looting, the money grubbing and racism was all true and honestly immersive. But to you my great sir, I ask, when did Ron Maxwell portray the CSA in "Gods and Generals" in any similar light? It was amazing while watching I thought of the Longest Day as another example, then you beautifully brought it up. And you are right, the portrayal of the Wehrmacht in that film just really shows them as a military force doing what it is supposed to do, completely omitting the atrocities committed on the Eastern Front and in the concentration camps. But in my opinion the American and British soldiers in the film are still portrayed in a positive light, with casting the likes of John Wayne and Sean Connery to fight the Germans. The director there is still hinting at who you should be rooting for. In "Gods and Generals", the CSA honestly has the star studded cast with Steven Lang and Robert Duvall. I think it went over your head possibly these kind of minute details that really separate films like "The Longest Day" and "Gods and Generals" from each other. This is without bringing up the score and editing during pivotal CSA scenes in the film, but you already dismissed those (though I think those scenes enrapture some folks unlike you sah).
I would argue that the direction leads the average viewer with no HISTORICAL background to see the CSA as at least somewhat protaganistic, especially Stonewall Jackson. I know we "students of history" inherently research the background of person, peoples or place after viewing media about it but I would say the average person does not, I know my girlfriend and buddies don't.
I would say I am little disappointed in AS inability to recognize the Yankees had a muddy record realistically, but also your lack of acknowledgement that this film is partially propaganda, and even though the hood didn't get pulled over on you, it has been on thousands of others, including my grandpa, who uses this film to justify his beliefs. Great provoking reaction. Love you VTH and keep doing you sir!!!
@@philmccracken7520 I've read The Killer Angels, so I understand where you're coming from. Great NOVEL as it is fiction based on a real event, written by Michael Shaara. Shaara did careful research to create his story but he even says in his "To the Reader" that this his writing is based on his interpretation. This is usually called historiography, his novel being a prime example on how something can be written and reflect how society at the time of it's printing was seeing said history. Seeing the sequels were written by his son, I have not delved into them yet and it sounds like I should! As a lover of Star Wars, I see what you could mean, without the destruction of the Empire in the third, the second film would feel suspect at best haha. But realize, academically speaking, this trilogy is not a good source of information regarding the actual Civil War, they're just damn good reads with history mixed in.
I have actually taken a history course specifically, good ole History 3030 -History of Ohio at OSU, and did you know per proportion of population, that Ohio as a state provided more soldiers for the Union than any other? I was amazed! New York provided the most straight up numerically. I also took my senior seminar course on the Civil War itself so please understand that I know the complexities of the war itself and those who served (ex. these Ohioan generals who fought for the south you bring up or the great Union general George Henry Thomas from Virginia). Understand as well my grandfather was born in 1939 and was growing up during the time of the Great Migration, where so many African Americans were heading north, to places like Chicago, to escape Jim Crow in the South.
My grandfather and I have had this discussion you elude to at the end of your comment, "ask him and find out his reason", and he told me honestly because we are close. It's the racial clashes that happened in suburban south side Chicago. My grandpa has admitted his prejudice but also finds it justified due to instances back in the 1950s during his late teens. Luckily, I've studied history and know he's just a product of his time, it's no excuse for his behavior today but it explains the "why".
I think we will have to agree to disagree phil on whether or not Ron Maxwell had good intentions with this movie when it comes to shedding the CSA in a certain light, and that's okay :) like VTH said its all through interpretation.
@@philmccracken7520
EV shows as incompetent imperial leadership as IV, their cruelty to their subordinates, their untrustworthiness and the humilating of their elite by a criminal
So the Longest Day comparison was weak and in my view dishonest. The Holocaust isn't what caused the Second World War or the Normandy Landings, so not depicting the Holocaust in a movie about a military action that had zero to do with it. Slavery on the otherhand was the cause of the Civil War, thousands of slaves followed the Confederate army and we only see slaves that love their white masters. Gods and Generals is very purposeful in their depiction of slavery. And it was too make it seem like it was a non-issue.
Hey, real question for you: what do you think of the portrayal of Stephen in Django Unchained? Is there something to the idea of loyal slaves being loyal because it may have given to them some kind of privilege and advantage over the other slaves? The portrayal reminds me very much of Frankl describing gangs of more ruthless Jewish men being put in direct managerial position over the others in the labor camps, or thieves, murderers, and rapists being put in charge in the gulags, seeing as how they were “more trustworthy” as “victims of the system” and not political prisoners, who were the “real enemy”. Would love to here your thoughts about whether or not there was a kind of twisted incentivizing of loyalty from African American slaves in the South.
The only reason that I think Gods and Generals as Neo-Confederate propaganda is because go read the description of the the film makers other film Copperhead. He’s 100% in on the lost cause stuff.
I watched this film the first time when I was young, maybe 15 or 16, and I found myself suporting the confederates. I am from Chile so until a few years ago I did not really know too much about the American civil war and I think that shows the main problem with the movie: It chooses to show things that out of context will make the conferacy look good without showing the evil main reason of the war.
And regarding the example you gave with the WW2 movie (sorry i forgot the name lol), I think even though it is a good point, it does not really aply here because even high school teenagers know what the nazis did, so is not necesary to show the holocaust, but this is not the case with the American civil war, at least it was not for me.
Brit here, hoping I have a different bias/perspective to you and Atun Shei.
Firstly I want to say we're all brought here by our mutal love of history and anyone insulting each other or giving you or other grief for different perpectives is totally out of line. You're both great channels and the fans should support each other.
I have to say tho, I really side with Atun-Shei on this.
I do agree he's full of hyperbole and is clearly trying to wind up lost causers (something he admits in the pinned comment on his video, he says he wishes he had taken the video more seriously and acted more neutrally with more focus on history if he knew it was going to go viral)
That said I disagree with your asserment that he "Claims he doesn't have bias." when he saying the video is not propaganda. He rejects that his video is propaganda, not that it doesn't have biases. He says he has bias in the video and gives an example of a movie with characters who have strong idealogical convictions making aggressive arguments, that isn't propaganda.
The other big thing I disagree with is that you say it can't be propaganda if the movie depicts things that either are true or could be true. Most propaganda is either truth or half-truth. It's how you display it and what you omit.
For example, you could make a WW2 movie showing Hitler as a poor youth, showing him heorically fighting in WW1, getting decorated twice for valor, seeing Germany's economy fall apart, fixing it, showing him play with dogs and then show Stalin being evil, Americans being arrogant, Churchil being a fat boozing moron. Then never mention Jews or the holocaust or concentration camps or the idoctrination or violent uprisings.
And everything you just depicted "Is true" or "happened/could have happened." but what you're depicting (and more importantly, what you're omitting) is clearly presenting a warped view of history.
Showing the first 2 years of the US civil war including the outbreak of the Civil war where there's no cornerstone speech, no slaves around, no one even talking about slavery, the main character's slaves are missing and the only 3 slaves (well 2.5) in the entire movie are really clean, good looking and really happy to be slaves.
Including 1 who is in the army, which would be impossibe and 1 who challenges Lee about slavery and Lee responds "Yeah we're gonna free slaves if they fight for us." which is pure nonense.
Then putting the focus of the war on States Rights and Bankers portrayed as obnoxiously as possible.... Yeah that screams propaganda
Looking outside your and Atun Shei's videos (which I admit is unfair) this film massively flopped and was torn apart by critics.... except by far-right and lost causer cicles who love it for depicting the confederacy in a great light. Whether that was Maxwell's intention or not I can't say, but it's certainly seems to be the result.
I also disagree with your claim that Atun-Shei can't accept any movie that shows confederates as protaganists.
He praises Gettysburg and loves The Outlaw Josey Wales (I really reccomend you watch that video)
Gotta give this one to the Yankee 😅
I can thank my father for teaching me how to compare and contrast. People sometimes hear but don't listen. VTH is just giving an opinion to what Atun Shei's critique on G&G. In the end they both agree. It's a shitty film. I know some of my family believe in a certain way and I'm not going to change their mind. I will have a conversation with almost anyone as long as it doesn't get heated. If I'm listening and I agree we're ok but if I disagree I have no problemt telling them they're full of shit or squirrel. VTH didn't deserve the vitriol on this video.
I’ve been watching Aunt Shun Tai videos and yours for a while and I enjoy both of you guys. I do like to hear both of your guys perspectives on this
I think if there had been a scene of Jackson being "strict but fair" to a slave, it would have dramatically altered the way Jackson was portrayed in the film.
I think Atun Shei comes off as criticizing the film a bit too much for what it is, rather than what impact it can have.. Historians can enjoy parts of this movie and not be significantly influenced, because they know enough context to look past the "thrill" of the moment. That's you, me, Atun Shei, etc. To those who know little about it or are looking for something to validate their existing beliefs, it can be misleading, even dangerous. The movie is largely accurate, but selectively so. That's necessary, to be a movie, but the choice of what was shown and what wasn't, was either deliberately or irresponsibly aggravating in the context of its relevance to modern divisive political issues. Other movies, showing other eras and perspectives, can get away with it because they don't carry as much modern relevance. Even something like Nazism (not that too many movies show a sympathetic Nazi perspective), even though it's more recent, doesn't have nearly as significant of a following right now.
" it can be misleading, even dangerous" whats the matter? afraid misinformation could lead someone to believing something that isn't true?
Man, I wish I had a neighbour like you. Smart, fair and open minded. I love that.
As a fan of Atun Shei's have you thought about reaching out to do a collaboration? I'd like to see the two of you both talk about this together. I have a copy of Gods and Generals on blue ray. I watched it once and never again. It's way way too long IMHO.
I would suggest that the bad quality of G&G and it's pro southern slant are related. If the director didn't intend to make a pro lost cause movie, the pro-lost cause effect could well have been unintentional.
Note that G&G generally got bad reviews, so saying it's bad is a fairly objective statement.
And the general opinion of these critics was also that G&G had a pro-confederate slant.
18:45
One of the "slave-owners" that I most enjoyed seeing on screen was the character of Benedict Cumberbatch in 12 years of slavery.
He is a gentler and more benevolent gentleman
But something about him always made me curious
He seemed to treat slaves like dogs.
And one of the examples is the scene where he tells the protagonist that he sold him to another
I genuinely liked this portrayal of someone not necessarily evil
But with a bad bias
(Poor english, i am brazilian"
This was also a really interesting portrayal, and even though the movie was based on actual memoirs, I felt like the point of his character was also to show how an evil institution like slavery warped even fundamentally kind people to it's own purposes.
With the scene where her sold the main character, it's because he could no longer guarantee the main character's protection from being lynched and killed. Throughout his time there, that slave owner gave him a fiddle to play in his free time, he took his advice, we was give other opportunities. That slave owner was a Christian and he recited sermons about salvation in the next life (to contrast with Michael Fassbender's character where the first scene was him using Bible verses to justify his subjugation of his slaves, only to renounce his faith in favor of strict "might makes right" when he whips the slave he repeatedly rapes).
The point being that even though Benedict Cumberbatch was kind, he still profited from this enterprise for his own wealth. He still stripped a mother from her children. He still employed people that used their positions of power to cause harm every day. Even though he was kind, he could not take the leap that US Grant did and free his slaves. And that's similar to founders like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who would talk about freedom and how awful slavery was, yet refuse to free their slaves until death (and still sell many more).
When you profit immensely from an evil system, it becomes almost impossible to harm your own wellbeing and forsake your wealth simply to stop doing something that is truly evil. And the evil status quo wins as a result.
It's human nature that when you have absolute control of another human being you will eventually badly abuse them, even if you didn't intend to at the start. That is why in most societies no one has the absolute power to do whatever they want to another human, which defines slavery, not even their own children.
12 Years a Slave is a terrific movie in so many ways and at so many levels. The complexity of character and acting ability was on par with Lincoln.
My biggest problem with with his video is correcting how people at
the time felt about an issue. I.e. showing a rebel soldier saying "we're fighting for our rights" and then saying no they weren't, they just wanted slavery. Or the justification the different soldiers give for fighting and basically saying - no you're wrong (even if it may have been literally what the guy said)
Most soldiers in any war aren't walking around talking about the politics of why they are fighting. Are we supposed to only see civil war movies where the union soldiers are constantly talking about how much they want to free slaves and the opposite for the other side? Really? How juvenile
My understanding was that this was supposed to be a trilogy, and the 3rd never got made. There’s only so much you can say about directorial intent without having afforded the opportunity to show the entire plan. Like you said, the South was winning at this section. I think the 3rd would have looked very pro-Union
Man, I gotta say, you have to be the most fair-minded guy I've ever seen on this, sometimes questionable, site.
To me the major difference between this and Gettysburg and the reason Gods and Generals is propaganda and Gettysburg is not, is because Gods and Generals focuses so much on these characters. It spends time with them and their families and lets you know who they are and what their emotional states are, and it does all this in service of getting you to sympathize and root for them. Comparatively, you take a movie like Downfall which focuses on Adolf Hitler and the Nazis and spends time with them getting the audience to understand them and their emotional state and then lets the audience decide for themselves who these characters are and if they should sympathize with them or not. It's the exact opposite. Gods and Generals tries to get you to like the Confederate slave owning racists by depicting their good qualities and omitting their bad ones whereas Downfall shows everything and doesn't attempt to persuade the audience one way or the other.
To touch on your point about the music. Filmmakers will use character's body language, dialogue, actions, and reactions to their consequences as means of depicting what these characters stood for and believed. The role music plays is not to get inside the heads of the characters but to influence the audience's reactions to the character's decisions and actions. In Gods and Generals the characters stand up and cheer when the South secedes. That's what shows you their intentions, but the music is triumphant and inspiring because the movie wants you to cheer with them. In Revenge of the Sith when Palpatine announces his converting the Republic to an Empire the Senate's reaction is the same, "thunderous applause" as Padme states, but the music is dim and dreary and foreboding because George Lucas wants us to feel the dread that the scene is supposed to express. That's how not understanding the language of film restricts you from understanding those points, which is understandable, but just wanted to point that out.
Regarding the point about lies by omission. If the movie Patton did not include Patton's raging antisemitism and Nazi sympathizing than that is by all means a lie by omission. If I made movie about Roman Polanski and showed him surviving the Holocaust as a child, fleeing to America, achieving his dreams in becoming a filmmaker, marrying Sharon Tate just to have her and their unborn child murdered by the Manson family and then just cut it off before his raping of a thirteen year old girl and fleeing the country to avoid jail time than that would absolutely be a lie by omission. By excluding that major character flaw and wrong doing I'm telling the audience to sympathize with this character due to the hardships he went through and ignore the other stuff. When making a film about a historical figure or event you have a responsibility to depict these things and if you don't that's either a fatal mistake or cruel intention.
I’m sorry anyone was a prick to you about not having a film background. I hope my comment on your previous video didn’t come across that way.
I was just trying to share my brief experience with film school...1.5 years while between labs & considering a career change.
Not at all. I appreciate hearing from people with any background that can give a different perspective, yours included. Just making the point that education doesn’t automatically make an opinion unassailable.
@@VloggingThroughHistory oh absolutely. Especially with a topic as subjective as art, but even on more technical topics that sort of pretentious gate keeping is unproductive & just causes people to dig in, rather than encouraging them to engage with a different perspective.
I just know how...unpleasant...a not insignificant proportion of the Atun shei fanbase can be (like Andy himself recognizes). So I felt compelled to apologize, just in case I had contributed to that sort of toxicity in any way.
Vlogging, I appreciate your viewpoint, but I feel like Atun-shei pretty much nailed this one.
I think it's interesting that you clicked away from Maxwell's texts so quickly without going into detail into the different articles/texts that were posted.
Instead, all you said was "I don't see anything there..." which made sirens go off in my head since you've been so well researched in everything else.
I read every one of them. I see nothing there that can be used to make assumptions about the director’s motivation in making this film. It sets of sirens in my head that any person would conclude otherwise.
@@VloggingThroughHistory Maxwell has been quoted many time stating that Lee and Jackson were opposed to slavery even though both were enslavers. This is the same Robert E Lee that fought in court to keep people enslaved people after the timeframe set in GWP Custis' will. He also repeatedly claims that "invading Mexicans" are trying to reconquer the SW. He's a terrible person, just do some research on the guy.
You have a lot of neo-Confederate subscribers. I know you aren't anything like a neo-Confederate but I really don't want you to fall into the trap of audience capture here. Please don't let them influence you. Go Bucks.
The author of Gods and Generals seems to agree with Atun-Shei to some extent as he doesn't seem too happy with the way the film turned out. The Reel History TH-cam channel had a chat with him which was really interesting.
Funny enough, I'm going to be with Jeff Shaara (the author of Gods and Generals) and Jared (from Reel History) in a few weeks.
@Vlogging Through History cool, maybe there could be a cross-over video
@@VloggingThroughHistory That's pretty awesome, It's pretty cool that people are meeting through a shared interest that they are all passionate about. Should make for some interesting conversations.
I just wanna say that I was particularly biased towards Atun-Shei in the beginning of these two videos. While I'm a liberal person I have had a great variety of friends in terms of lifestyle and political viewpoints. Some of those friends were "lost cause" believers and I had many arguments with them over it. I can totally understand A-S's approach to being suspicious of anything that even hints of that narrative (I'm a similar way with anything having to do with Germany during WWII), however your objections and points did make clear that he is overreaching in some regards and I think you've done a great job at balancing out his rhetoric and countering his weaker points.
A major problem with teaching history is how do we remain objective and facts based while also precluding people from falling into a rabbit hole of myths, conspiracy theories, and extremism especially in hotly debated subjects such as the Civil War. I think your response has worked great and your overall philosophy of trying to just stick to the facts and acknowledge your biases before hand is effective. Your comment about the looting and sacking of southern cities (in part 1) I think perfectly conveyed this. Did Union Armies sack and loot southern cities? yes. Was it necessary for the Union army to do so on the whole? Yes. Multiple points can be true and we shouldn't try to frame history around conveying some type of narrative (as best as we can) because then it makes us look for certain facts instead of trying to view things holistically.
Also you don't need a film degree to critique film. While it may open up new areas that the average person may have neglected for critique, art is accessible to everyone and should be open to review by everyone. I've loved your channel so far and have learned a lot from it. I'll compliment you both and say you and A-S have definitely gotten me more interested in Civil War history, and am looking to read and learn more on my own now. Thanks for all the information! Keep up the good work.
The comparison with World War 2 might not work in this case because after the War the Crimes of the Nazi Regime were never sugarcoated. There is no need to show it in every movie. Except for some minor fringe groups in Austria and Germany there is no Lost cause myth going on.
As a European I almost got sucked into the southern lost cause myth because I never knew there was such a thing. Not aware of that Europeans might buy into this myth, not getting the implied nuance.
But we Europeans are propably not the main target group, so therefore I might overreact.
While I think Atun is a bit too zealous in this video, he does make fair points. I personally wouldn’t go as far as to call the movie propaganda, but I will agree with him that the movie is really bad overall. If you do a part 3, I recommend you watch his The Best Civil War Movie from the Southern Perspective in the future which I should warn does still have him take jabs at this movie and the director.
@@night6724 Oh Im sorry this is relevant why?
Well if i could respond to the comment i don't think his video over "the best civil war movie from the southern perspective" really makes sense because although the movie he discusswd about took place in the era and have Southern character, the premise of the movie isn't about political beliefs but personal vendetta against "some barbaric forces" which was pro union. It is different when talking about movies like Gods and Generals or Gettysburg or even Glory that points out more than just one man's struggle.
The movie he mentioned could be even more matched with the movie "Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter" which is also a fictionalized version of one man's struggle took place at that time lol
I think the problem with talking about the reason for succession is people view it as either, just about state rights or just about slavery, when it's about both equally, At that point in time slavery was a choice left up to the state, the federal government took ( or at least threatened to take) that right away. Which I believe led to the feeling of, if they can take this power/ choice away from states, what else can they take
( Not saying that removing slavery was wrong just trying to express my point)
While I can understand not liking his personal attacks, I largely agree with him about the film. It does seem to appeal to a lot of the Lost Cause types, and the ones who want to whitewash the horrible truths about slavery. In a way, I can understand the anger and frustration he was feeling too. I remember the time I went through my own political awakening and realizing the lies that I had believed. I was angry and frustrated that people were still making films, shows, etc that encouraged those beliefs. They may have generally believed them, but I wonder if they did truly believe, or were just trying to sell it for kids to fall into a certain way of thinking.
I think Atun was so aggressive with the movie because it isn’t the historical reasoning behind the movie, but rathe the way it’s portrayed. It’s obvious the director has a bias, believes in the Lost Cause even just slightly, and is trying to show the confederacy as a defensive honorable misunderstood army, instead of a separatist state made to preserve slavery, and it’s men happily fought to prevent what they thought would start a race war. So I wouldn’t exactly hate nor dislike Atun, he’s just being (rightfully) angry at the propaganda shown on screen.
Well hello there VtH.
Since the last comment section was a bit spicy. So here is an off topic and less controversial question to all of you: what is you favorite thing to eat for dinner? Mine is pizza. What is yours folks?
Greetings from Germany
if i am allowed to chime in, my favourite is pasta with spicy tomato sauce :D and greetings from saxony , germany :D
@@MegaSommerfeld greetings back from Mainz.
@@ct7567CaptRex mein bruder wohnt zwischen mainz und kaiserslautern :D
My favorite foods are Hamburgers and Pancakes. 😎👍
Greetings and Peace ✌🏻 from Pennsylvania, USA.
You also blantantly overlooked Ron Maxwell's posts which would have helped you figure out why Atu shei is so critical of him and just assumed Atu shei is being prejudiced.
You don't have to agree with atu shei point of view. The posts of Ron Maxwell would give clarification as to why atu shei behaved the way he did.
Overlooked was the wrong word I used.
With regard to lying by omission, I do still think that holds true for this film, though your argument to the contrary is fair: that every film can't include a full range of all of the unsavory things about its characters/era is reasonable and true... not every film can, nor is it necessarily in the scope of every given story. But with this film in particular, it's not a matter of expecting the film to have diverged from its storyline to include such things. Rather, it's the fact that even just within the storyline that is presented in this film, so many unsavory aspects of the Confederacy would likely have been unavoidable and commonplace fixtures in an uncontrived portrayal... yet they're either missing or, as is often the case in the film, they are exchanged for much more savory, but MUCH less representative, cases. That a film would offer non-representative cases here or there is fine... but in this film, there's a heavy-handed pattern of that. Because likewise, it sometimes feels as if the proverbial third-person cameraman is deliberately seeking out scenarios that would illustrate the Union in the most ambiguous light possible. That's what I meant by saying that I feel the film lies by omission. It's not that it failed to drag every objectionable thing about the Confederacy into the story, but that those objectionable things would've been virtually impossible to miss even in the story that it DOES paint... and yet they aren't. It's not that the Union didn't have some moral ambiguity or foolishness in its own corner, but there just feels like there's quite a magnifying glass placed over those bits in particular. Overall though, I think this is a great set of videos that does well to spur discussion and explore differing viewpoints in a civil manner. Thanks for your efforts on these!
Yeah I was making a more general statement about the concept of lying by omission. That said the fact they chose to portray slavery at all does change things a bit and obligate them to portray it honestly. I’d have preferred if they just left it out entirely.
34:52 The overwhelming majority of conservatives believe in the lost cause mythology. Not saying Maxwell can't be one of the rare exceptions, but it's unlikely given that his portrayal of the slaves seems to jive almost perfectly with what most Lost Causers say was the "reality of slavery."
I understand what you are getting at around the 11 minute mark about the lack of racial profanity and showing a comparison to other WWII movies about the Nazi's and General Patton. I do not believe they conflate though. Racially charged words we so common place during this time, for both sides, that the only person using such a term is an Union soldier that says the term "Darkie" is incredibly disingenious to the period these events take place in. Let's forget for a second that the average word for a person of colour back then wasn't a word that is considered hate speech today, it is also the infrequency of any such racial charged language that brings the directors choices into question. The movie directly avoids using these words because they know that using such language would instantly turn the audience's opinion against the protagonists (the Confederacy). It also comes off as incredibly cheap to have the only racial "slur" used by an Union soldier, which you cannot deny is decision on the fim makers side to turn the audience against these characters or, at least, view them in a more negative light.
A more accurate comparison using your WWII films would be if a German focused movie showed zero anti-semitic language towards Jews, but the Americans drop a racial slur or joke. We know that both sides did have anti-semitic views, but anyone that argues that the Americans had the same level as the Germans during WWII needs to read a history book.
This movie decides to take away the nuance of racism during the Civil War and instead decides to use its time painting the side fighting for Emancipation as the only faction to drop racial slurs. Not to mention the many seens showing Southerns treating slaves as a part of the family while the North has its slaves portrayed as silent butlers and maids. I don't think we need a history degree to realize that this movie shows blantant favouritism towards one side of the other and my not completely disregard history, but rather chooses to show instances that support its narrative.
Patton apparently didnt know a tank from a horse, except the fact that the tank doesn't kick you when you get behind it. Patton was overrated as hell.
Just discovered your channel. I remember seeing this years ago and thought it was a very oversimplified reaction to a movie that could've been better. I have my own opinions of the war that I'm sure would hurt someone's feelings but I certainly agree with most of what you have said. Many topics that require many discussions.
I very much appreciate this breakdown. You are saying so much of what I was thinking back when he first posted these and I watched them.
Your assumptions speech is awesome! I'll be using that in my classroom.
You're being purposely obtuse when you constantly say "Well, that's what actually happened."
The obvious problem is why they choose to present certain events and choose to omit others.
When we're dealing with extremely large events involving millions of people, you can OBVIOUSLY scrounge together stories, quotes and anecdotes to represent whatever point of view you want without being factually wrong.
I have a hard time believing you would be just as defensive of a film that showed the perspective of Nazis or KKK members by "simply showing their perspective" of when they genocide groups of people or lynch African Americans with rousing music since its "simply representing what it was like for them". Maybe we can also cherry pick some Jewish people doing bad things since it informs the Nazi psyche. But, these people actually existed and this is how Nazis really thought so no problem right?
Some perspectives aren't worth showing. VTH ignores this because... some reason.
With all due respect, the lack of the holocaust mentions in "The Longest Day" is not a good comparison. "The Longest Day" focuses on the military history of the Normandy invasion and less about the causes of the war (much like Gettysburg). "Gods and Generals," on the other hand, does devote a lot of time to the politics surrounding the war
As a side note, I recently finished Ty Seidule's book "Robert E Lee and Me." The movie has a scene where Jackson argues that loyalty to Virginia outweighed his loyalty to the country as a whole. Ty argues that he was the exception, not the rule. The US Army had 8 Colonels from the state of Virginia prior to the war. Of those 8, only Robert E Lee resigned his commission to fight for the CSA, the other 7 fought for the Union. Many of Lee's own family members (including Admiral Samuel Philips Lee) stayed loyal to the Union. The vast majority of West Point grads, even those from the south, stayed with the Union.
The vast majority of southern West Point grads fought for the south. In fact, the split between Union and Confederate generals who were West Point grads was 217 Union and 146 CSA. Men like Sam Lee and John Pemberton went against their native states because of their marriages. Lee was married to Francis Blair’s daughter. The same Blair who offered RE Lee command of the Union Army. Pemberton, a Pennsylvanian, sided with his wife’s Virginia.
If you can’t appreciate two people honestly and earnestly giving their views on both the making of the movie and the historical accuracy of the movie, I’m not sure what y’all doing here.
This was great.
One of the things that hurt this film that people don't discuss is that it is only a part of what was supposed to be a trilogy. Gettysburg, Gods & Generals, and The Last Full Measure. Because of the box office failure of Gods & Generals, the third film was never made. I wonder if that had been completed whether the movies would be viewed differently.
Think of it as God & Generals is the first part, where the Confederates are getting the early victories, and you see their perspective (however misguided and twisted it was). Gettysburg was the second in the trilogy, and the turning point on the Eastern Front. The third film, the Last Full Measure, would've shown the end of the war and the destruction of the Confederates. I wish we would've gotten the final film to get the full picture of what Jeff Shaara and Maxwell were going for.
In Longest Day we are following average soldiers and it is about the horrors of war very similarly to Gettysburg. In this film we are following Lee and Jackson the 2 "heroes of the confederacy." If longest day followed Hitler and made you feel sympathy for him and made him out to be a martyr without any mention of holocaust that would be your lie of omission that would be God's and Generals. There is a pretty substantial difference because of the "who" that is being followed and why.
Yes we should be following lee and jackson, but to portray 2 of the most famous leaders of the confederacy without portraying the confederacies motivation is where that lie of omission comes in.
Remember everything in a movie is chosen to be put in. Everything not in is also a choice. They accurately portray the looting, but they didn't have to portray that at all. They accurately portray a stuffy northern politician, but he doesn't have anything to do with the battle, they just to put him in.
Paton is not a good example, because even though he agreed. He wasn't the one putting them in camps he was fighting against. It is also not a great example, because some call it American war machine propaganda. Using a film that can be considered propaganda as an example against another film that is being argued go be propaganda is never a good thing.
The Longest Day spends plenty of time following generals. Lee and Jackson were generals too. Hitler was a head of state not a general. Not the same.
@@VloggingThroughHistory who has the most statues in the south honoring the confederacy? Is it Jefferson Davis? Or is it Robert E. Lee? He may not be the head of state but he is the symbol of the Confederacy just as much as Hitler is the symbol of the Nazi's. It is 1000% the same thing.
Edit: again longest day and Gettysburg are a great example. Showing both sides, normal soldiers, generals. Horrors of war.
Symbols of an ideology are different. A symbol of a movement does not need to be a head of state, but does need to be treated as that symbol.
@@VloggingThroughHistory Honestly, this is bothering me more than it should. I am just going to leave this final comment and leave it alone.
Saying Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson are "just generals" because they are not "heads of state" is incredibly reductive.
It is the equivalent of saying Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks and Malcolm X are just civilians and giving all credit for the civil rights movement to Lindon B. Johnson because he is the head of state.
You are a historian, I know you know better than this and can understand how people become symbols for their cause and who some of the most prominent symbols are.
I think I am with Atun-Shei on this one.
If you have only limited previous knowledge this film tells you, that the southern brand of slavery wasn't that bad and the North were the aggressors.
You are an exceptionally learned man who knows of all the bad things that aren't mentioned, but 99% of the audience will know less about the civil war than you (me included, as I'm from Germany.) We have a saying here that roughly translates to: You can't see the forest because of all the trees in your line of sight.
Your comparison with "the longest day" doesn't quite fit as the German characters aren't all shown saving Jews or other minorities whenever they have a slow moment in that film.
Gods and Generals presents the South in a positive light without any counterbalance, and if the director seriously didn't intend this film as a Propaganda movie he's just incompetent in that regard.
Congrats on 200k man
The problem with the movie, and the thing Atun is trying to convey, isn't that parts of it are necessarily factually inaccurate per se, but rather that the things that it pushes to the forefront and focuses on were extremely rare situations and therefore presents them as common. Some slaves did care about their owners, for instance. But when you spend your limited time in a film showing those relatively few instances while not showing the much more common and horrifying truth of history, it sanitizes and perverts the view of the general public, especially people without a deep historical background. The best example of a balanced film in this regard is Schindler's List. Schindler was a member of the Nazi party who saved close to a thousand Jews. But that movie doesn't shy away from the Nazi brutality of Jews, it shows it in all of it's horrifying detail, and makes it clear Schindler was the exception to the rule and not the norm for a typical Nazi. There weren't scenes of Jews professing their unconditional love for Nazi's, kissing them when they leave for the front, crying when they die, and wanting to join the Wehrmacht to fight the Allies, although I'm sure there are instances of that happening.
I do follow Atun-Shei and enjoy his content, but after doing more of my own studying around the Civil War and Reconstruction era, I actually find myself more in your camp.
I appreciate your maturity and willingness to admit your shortcomings, and all the while maintaining your composition. I know many people in this field who explode at the first sign of being criticized.
I think the problem is a matter of balance. You could argue that "They Died With Their Boots On" was a telling of the Battle of the Little Bighorn from Custer's perspective. We would never make that movie today. We would at least mention Sitting Bull's perspective. Gettysburg was appropriately balanced. I am reminded of Grant's quote about Appomattox Courthouse. "I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse." The nearly total omission of the North's point of view made this film an unfair representation of the conflict if not out and out propaganda.
I think the reason for that is that this is the first of a trilogy. It lacks the balance that would have been provided by a very heavily northern-focused part 3, which was never created. This film isn't meant to stand on its own.
@@VloggingThroughHistory Thanks for the rational discussion.
@Vlogging Through History the reason that they never made the third one was because this one bombed hard at the box office
My relationship with lost cause myths is interesting,
At first, I was told the civil war was over slavery. It was elementary school in California and I was told the same thing in all grades (1-5). It was simple and I didn’t question it.
When I was in high school, I was told it was more complicated. Makes sense. Complicated doesn’t work for kids and more mature people can understand nuance. I was told about states rights, personal freedom, northern aggression, etc. I met a lot more southerners and they talked about heritage. One thing someone said was “a white man cannot say white pride without sounding like a racist.”
But then, I fell into politics. And at the time, I was in the military. The confederacy came into focus again and I read more on what they said. I read journals and speeches and lo and behold, my elementary teachers were correct.
I see the confederacy as a treason. I would be mortified if officers placed over me would attack my country. In my opinion, all confederate leadership should’ve been executed, from lieutenants to the president. And anyone that still supports the confederacy is basically a bad person by default.
Individuals could’ve fought for whatever reason they need to make themselves feel better but the south as a whole, fought for slavery.
You should watch his Gettysburg series where you can tell he's mellowed out quite a bit.
You are totally correct in your assessment, I 'm sure you and he could have hours of dialogue discussing the subject you both study so diligently. Thankyou both.
See I think both of them are right in some sense, he's right about Atun Shei showing his personal biases/prejudices, but I find the movie to be tremendously suspicious in its intentions
I love the thoughtful response to the critique. This is why I watch the channel. I will restate from my comment on the last video I would like a cross channel compilation between VTH and Atun-Shei and I will get some popcorn. Anything about the civil war, dachshunds welcome.
I agreed with most of what you said in the first video because I think that it’s wrong to say that God and Generals is propaganda, but I think that it’s hard to defend the movie’s depiction of slavery. That doesn’t make the movie bad or propaganda and the director racist, but it’s important to acknowledge both the good things and the bad things about a movie that’s about such a delicate subject.
Well, I don't think Atun-Shei is saying he's being objective about his critique of the movie in terms of how the movie depicts slaves. He's taking a position- through the eyes of a 21st Century person. Sure, some Germans like Schindler were kind to Jewish people, but if the movie Schindler's List only portrayed German's being kind to Jewish people it would have sparked massive outrage. Personally I think Atun-Shei is walking a line between being principled, historically accurate but also entertaining. Clearly a historian will have a different perspective and both presentations work in my opinion.