Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
And Then They Came for Ken Burns?
Sounds a bit ridiculous, right? Noted filmmaker and creator of the highly-praised documentary The Civil War. Liberal Ken Burns. Darling of PBS.
I hesitated to start this conversation because 1) I hardly ever start conversations, and 2) I’m not an expert on the documentary, although I’ve certainly seen all of it, some more than once. I remember that it was extremely well-done, and that one of the reasons that it struck a chord was that it projected humanity. We learned about the bloody, needless struggle, and we learned about slavery, but we also learned about the people on both sides of the conflict. And, while I have no recollection that Burns was “soft” on the South, I also don’t recall vitriol and outright, severe condemnation. There was even, I think, a degree of sympathy for some portrayed.
It’s been awhile, so perhaps I’m just wrong. For the record, the “25th Anniversary Edition” came out a couple of years ago. Do others share my recollection? Is there a remote chance that one day a “reassessment” may be self-imposed or demanded? And, yes, I chose the original VHS box as an image because of its portrayal of the flags, not to be inflammatory, but to show our changes.
Published in General
And if Burns were remaking it the series would look completely different.
I suppose that this perspective is at the root of my post. IMO, we need to think about that. This is not just any series. It is a series that was highly acclaimed in its time, and for years thereafter, that has been a staple of PBS. Because of its provenance, it may stand a chance at avoiding denunciation, being simply allowed to die on the vine, but I wonder if Burns himself will now feel that he has to renounce it or portions of it.
From the perspective of a 21st century progressive, it leaves it too much up to the viewer to decide what they think about what they are watching.
Why would he renounce it or portions of it? It made his name and will probably be his most important work.
He’s a Kennedy and Obama hagiographer, so he’s safe.
Well, I think that the degree to which he may be “safe” is part of the discussion I intended to provoke. The question is whether the work has become sufficiently out of step with today’s views that Burns might be made to feel the need for a mea culpa.
Hey, the Left used to lo-o-o-o-ve the South!
Cuz they were rebels!
Cuz they lost! ( Failure always endears itself to the Left– case in point: socialism.)
Remember The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down? The South used to stand for “country” a rural, agrarian, anti-revenooer, anti-authoritarian way of life.
“Save yer Confederate money, boys–the South’s gonna rise again!”
They were right. Now, a cavalry of bronze horsemen has been summoned to destroy the Union once again. And the Left is whippin’ em on.
I would be curious as to your opinion of my ancestor John McAllister Schofield who fought at Franklin and Nashville, among other places.
Maybe he’ll take a page out of the George Lucas playbook, and create a new, lefty-friendly “Special Edition” that will supplant the original, which will be flushed down the memory hole along with Han Shooting First. And he’ll echo Lucas with crap like “This is how I always envisioned it to be, and should be considered the definitive version now.”
Historians like Gary Ghallager at UVA mock Shelby Foote quite a bit, but Ghallager also finds the destruction of the memorial landscape to be wrong and a loss for the country. I believe Ghallager wouldn’t dispute Foote’s place in Civil War historiography either.
The Chinese pinyin spelling is actually ‘Li’. Li Xiaolong, aka Bruce Lee, spelled his name that way until Americanizing it. But the liberal elites in the media can’t be bothered with such distinctions. Chinese-Americans need not apply to Harvard, and they better check their privilege, because they are almost white. In fact, they have had it too good in America with their two parent families and hours of mandatory daily studying. I think they probably fought on the side of the Confederacy in the Civil War. If not, then history must be amended to reflect the new woke history (wokestory?).
That book and movie were terrible in how they represented Lee, especially the scene where Martin Sheen’s Lee chews out JEB Stuart. The actual encounter was so typical of Lee’s use of silent disapproval but instead Sheen just about had Lee throwing things in a tantrum.
At the same time the author portrayed Longstreet’s failure to move his army with alacrity as some act of prophetic brilliance, rather than the churlishness it was. It would be wrong to blame the loss at Gettysburg on Longstreet as many have tried, but he certainly didn’t help matters at all.
No one should ever rely on that source for their understanding of Lee.
Quite frankly, if they come for Ken Burns, let them at him. It is an instance of the left eating one of their own, and I hope they devour him entirely.
His documentaries are half-interesting, the other half left-wing propaganda, and he is a smug, self-righteous liberal. If the man never makes another crappy documentary again, it will be too soon.
Agreed. His civil war documentary was his one trick and even that was hardly even handed. It was heavily yankee biased.
oops.
Nice article, carry on.
Perhaps a soldier or two on either side had a hobby of putting on his wife’s bloomers when she wasn’t around. Burns never mentioned this. That seems rather trans-phobic.
Maybe they’ve gotten worse. His earlier stuff is really well-done and interesting, including CW. I recently watched all of his Lewis and Clark on Youtube, which I recommend.
I am looking for the specific targeting of Ken Burns, @hoyacon. I suppose you’re looking at this Slate article, which was republished per this new season of iconoclasm. However, keep in mind it was first put out there in 2011.
You won’t like it. He’s one of the generals I looked at when I wrote my book about the Franklin-Nashville campaign.
He was one of the corps commanders left behind by Sherman, which meant he was not on Sherman’s “A” list. Of course neither was Thomas, so Sherman’s judgement could be flawed, but it is one mark against Schofield.
To my mind he would have been a boss to avoid and a subordinate to watch carefully. He was not above jobbing both subordinates and superiors if he thought it could make him look good.
I believe he withdrew after Franklin because he knew he had won a major victory and did not wish to risk it being turned into a loss if he stayed resumed the battle the next day (as all his subordinate commanders urged). He stood on the letter of his orders knowing he could later say, “Well, I would have stayed and whipped Hood, but Thomas’s orders forced me to leave.” I understand the temptation. Few generals won a major battle that decisively, and plenty had seen a first day victory turn into a second day disaster. (Can you say “Shiloh” boys and girls?)
He also undercut Thomas, sending regular letters while at Nashville detailing all of Thomas’s “deficiencies” and urging Thomas be relieved by the next senior officer (coincidentally . . . himself).
Schofield was a competent general – really above average on that – but even better at playing army politics. He ended his career as commander of the United States Army. Regardless, if I had been working for him or he were working for me, I would probably never sat with my back to him.
Seawriter
I’m not sure that you’ll find “specific targeting” of Ken Burns. My post is more speculation on what the future could hold, and never suggested that any criticism was already out there.
Foote is a lyrical writer and wonderful chronicler on the great themes. As a military historian you can make a lot of legitimate criticism of his work.
Well, he was a novelist first. I have heard some of the criticism which comes in part from his ignoring things that trained historians don’t ignore about sourcing. Thanks for the thought @gumbymark
Thanks. When universities remove things in the middle of the night now, I wasn’t sure.
A corollary to the present discussion could involve whether there will be a reassessment of the works of the “traditional” historians that shaped my understanding of the Civil War–namely Bruce Catton and James McPherson. Unfortunately, it’s been a long while since I read them.
Sherman shared Grant’s opinion of Thomas, and they were both full of beans. Not only did Thomas rescue the Army of the Cumberland at Chickamauga, he crushed John Bell Hood’s Army of Tennessee despite being treated like a red-haired stepchild by both of them.
Thomas also held Chattanooga after Chickamauga, and on the final day of the Battle of Chattanooga commanded the troops who pulled Sherman’s chestnuts out of the fire on what was probably the day Sherman put in his worst battlefield performance of the Civil War.
The Rock of Chickamauga and the Sledge of Nashville.
Seawriter
My sense is that Catton is nowadays considered in the same category as Foote. A great stylist and good for his times but does not reflect updated scholarship. It was through Catton’s books that I first became interested in the Civil War. Don’t know about McPherson.
On a related note, it was Gary Gallagher who pieced together Edward Porter Alexander’s previously unknown autobiography, released in 1989 as Fighting for the Confederacy. Along with Grant’s Memoirs it’s the best account by a senior military officer.
I know he is still a very well respected historian despite winning the pulitzer some time ago.
I blame the loss at Gettysburg on Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain.
A hat tip to George Armstrong Custer?
Subtle but effective.
Yes, of course. And also the foolishness of going into Pennsylvania.