U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 06-25-2020, 11:27 AM
 
8,743 posts, read 4,307,852 times
Reputation: 4855

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
Moderator cut: Burns' politics are irrelevant in History forum discussions. The Civil War Series was decent, but his Vietnam series SUCKED as it was very biased against the U.S.
His Vietnam series sucked and one of the reasons is that Burns made mention of returning soldiers being spit on without presenting any visual evidence that it ever happened.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-26-2020, 10:34 PM
 
Location: Mogadishu, MN
6,783 posts, read 1,825,053 times
Reputation: 4131
The most worthless and pointless war by far this nation ever undertook. Had the country fractured in two as it should have, what we are currently suffering through (aand has proven will be our end) would never be occurring.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2020, 12:39 PM
 
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,412 posts, read 29,095,897 times
Reputation: 9809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Peasant View Post
I watched the entire series years ago and found it to be very thought provoking and educational. I also have the accompanying book and read it over and over again because it is so addictive history. Yet some people kind of feel that Burns over-commercializes history. I don't feel that way about his Civil War Series but then I am not a professional historian so I wouldn't really know. How accurate is his version of the Civil War? What do others think?


Some highlights of the Civil War Period covered in the series that many people tend to forget. It is important to reflect on these in light of the recent protests, the banning of the Confederate flag, and destruction of statues of figures from that era.



- The Civil War was fought primarily to prevent the South from seceding
- Not every Southerner supported secession and not every Northerner was pro-Union either
- Likewise not everyone who opposed secession opposed slavery or supported Blacks either; racist bigotry existed on both sides

- Robert E. Lee was not a supporter of secession or slavery and freed his own slaves but he was supremely dedicated to his home State of Virginia, which was why he turned down Lincoln's offer to lead the Army of the Potomac.

- There was a race riot that broke out in New York City shortly after Gettysburg
-Northerners and Southerners, Unionists and Rebels alike had friends and even relatives that fought on opposing sides which made the Civil War all the more ugly and unbearable
- Lincoln at times came off as an opportunist and relied on the prosecution of the war for his own political gains, especially around the time of the Election of 1864

- Years after the war when the re-united nation healed, many veterans from both sides forgave each other and wanted to move on
I was working in TV and didn't see it the first time around. I saw it later, after starting research of my own families during that time period. He should have named it Ode to the Army of the Potomac. Another, shorter, series was released later that focuses on the Western theater, which is where the war was actually won, after all.

Mr. Burns did a series that promoted his own biases. He ignored what didn't fit his biases.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2020, 10:59 PM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
886 posts, read 896,390 times
Reputation: 1040
Quote:
Originally Posted by greysrigging View Post
Remember the Ken Burns documentary was made 30 years ago, and without the revisionist pressures of May/June 2020.
And he used the most eminent Civil War Historians at the time to assist with the making of the program, including Shelby Foote, Barbara Fields, Ed Bearss and Stephen Oats among quite a few others with expertise in the field.
I've just finished a 3 part doco called 'Grant', which I also enjoyed ( life and times of Ulysses S Grant. ) The Ken Burns series did not quite paint Grant in the same 'revered status' as did the recent doco on the Civil War General and President.



I watched that Grant series. I enjoyed it but I wondered if revisionism was at work, or was I getting the more accurate picture?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2020, 06:30 AM
 
6,959 posts, read 3,145,095 times
Reputation: 21086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavalier View Post
The most worthless and pointless war by far this nation ever undertook. Had the country fractured in two as it should have, what we are currently suffering through (aand has proven will be our end) would never be occurring.

Well, that's kind of a whack opinion.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2020, 11:53 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
23,983 posts, read 25,898,948 times
Reputation: 53505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brynach View Post
I watched that Grant series. I enjoyed it but I wondered if revisionism was at work, or was I getting the more accurate picture?
People tend to throw around the term "revisionist history" as if it that's inherently wrong. History isn't a science, per se, but if historians take a new look at primary source materials and come up with different or updated viewpoints about historical events, that's not negative, that's scholarship.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2020, 12:38 PM
 
1,318 posts, read 1,478,538 times
Reputation: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleetiebelle View Post
People tend to throw around the term "revisionist history" as if it that's inherently wrong. History isn't a science, per se, but if historians take a new look at primary source materials and come up with different or updated viewpoints about historical events, that's not negative, that's scholarship.
The term “revisionist history” does not refer to evolving scholarship on a subject. It refers specifically to presenting a false narrative to suit a political or social agenda. It is inherently wrong. The Lost Cause narrative is a good example of revisionist history.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2020, 01:04 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
46,500 posts, read 19,996,193 times
Reputation: 20365
Quote:
Originally Posted by wpc691 View Post
The term “revisionist history” does not refer to evolving scholarship on a subject. It refers specifically to presenting a false narrative to suit a political or social agenda. It is inherently wrong. The Lost Cause narrative is a good example of revisionist history.
This is not correct. Revisionist history references new interpretations. You may agree with the new interpretation or disagree with it, but it is not automatically a "false narrative" as you describe above.

As an example, the story of the battle at the Alamo was for a long time presented as pure heroism on the part of the Texicans, republic minded champions of democracy fighting against an evil dictator. The Walter Lord and Lon Tinkle books on the subject dominated the field. Beginning with Jeff Long's "Duel of Eagles", a different interpretation was presented. The heroes were unmasked to a degree. Jim Bowie was a slave smuggler and land swindler before becoming an Alamo hero. William Travis had abandoned his wife and children and fled to Texas to escape bad debts. David Crockett came to Texas looking for an opportunity to restore his fallen political career after he lost his bid for re-election to Congress in 1835. He came partly because he mistakenly believed that the fighting was already over.

Long also addressed how the issue of slavery was involved. It had been outlawed by the Mexican Constitution, so the Texicans set up phony labor contracts with their slaves which changed only what the relationship was being called and nothing at all about the condition of permanent servitude.

Long also viewed the struggle from the point of view of the Mexicans, something the previous works had neglected.

I felt that Long over corrected the record, as is typical of the first revisionist looks at historical events tend to do. However, others have followed Long and written much more balanced books, ones which incorporate the considerations raised by Long, but retain the heroic aspects of the Texican fight. "A Line in the Sand" by Randy Roberts and James Olson is an excellent, well balanced view of the events. It is revisionist history, just as Long's book was revisionist history, but it has the virtue of being better revisionist history.

Revision means different, neither automatically right nor automatically wrong.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2020, 05:39 PM
 
Location: The North Star State
2,620 posts, read 796,265 times
Reputation: 11281
Quote:
Originally Posted by wpc691 View Post
The term “revisionist history” does not refer to evolving scholarship on a subject. It refers specifically to presenting a false narrative to suit a political or social agenda. It is inherently wrong. The Lost Cause narrative is a good example of revisionist history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
This is not correct. Revisionist history references new interpretations. You may agree with the new interpretation or disagree with it, but it is not automatically a "false narrative" as you describe above.

As an example, the story of the battle at the Alamo was for a long time presented as pure heroism on the part of the Texicans, republic minded champions of democracy fighting against an evil dictator. The Walter Lord and Lon Tinkle books on the subject dominated the field. Beginning with Jeff Long's "Duel of Eagles", a different interpretation was presented. The heroes were unmasked to a degree. Jim Bowie was a slave smuggler and land swindler before becoming an Alamo hero. William Travis had abandoned his wife and children and fled to Texas to escape bad debts. David Crockett came to Texas looking for an opportunity to restore his fallen political career after he lost his bid for re-election to Congress in 1835. He came partly because he mistakenly believed that the fighting was already over.

Long also addressed how the issue of slavery was involved. It had been outlawed by the Mexican Constitution, so the Texicans set up phony labor contracts with their slaves which changed only what the relationship was being called and nothing at all about the condition of permanent servitude.

Long also viewed the struggle from the point of view of the Mexicans, something the previous works had neglected.

I felt that Long over corrected the record, as is typical of the first revisionist looks at historical events tend to do. However, others have followed Long and written much more balanced books, ones which incorporate the considerations raised by Long, but retain the heroic aspects of the Texican fight. "A Line in the Sand" by Randy Roberts and James Olson is an excellent, well balanced view of the events. It is revisionist history, just as Long's book was revisionist history, but it has the virtue of being better revisionist history.

Revision means different, neither automatically right nor automatically wrong.
Grandstander is quite right.

I think wpc691's view probably derives from the fact that 'Revisionist!' is thrown around so much as a pejorative - by those aggrieved by a particular new interpretation - that some (maybe most) have never heard of it in any other sense.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2020, 05:55 PM
 
1,318 posts, read 1,478,538 times
Reputation: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41 View Post
Grandstander is quite right.

I think wpc691's view probably derives from the fact that 'Revisionist!' is thrown around so much as a pejorative - by those aggrieved by a particular new interpretation - that some (maybe most) have never heard of it in any other sense.
Thanks, you are both correct. I read a few quick references, and although a couple alluded to my interpretation being the current “popular” use of the term, the correct meaning is as you stated. Apparently the term I’m looking for is “negationism” or “negationist history”.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top