Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Interesting article on CW
- Just a thought here. For as big an effort Burn's put into that series, many things were omitted. Some of the facts were skewed. And , IMHO, his angle in telling the story had a significant slide toward racism than and today, using this story as a jumping off point into the discussion of racism.But one thing I think all will agree on; this series got more people interested in studying the Civil War in recent years that any other broadcast.Respectfully yours,bluelady (Mary Hawthorne)----- Original Message -----From: CashG79@...Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 2:41 PMSubject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Interesting article on CWIn a message dated 9/28/2002 8:31:19 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, carlw4514@... writes:
Cash, in the article Madelon originally cited at
it quotes Foner as saying "...even Ken Burns's acclaimed documentary
The Civil War , which is being rebroadcast this week for the first
time since 1997, contributes by glossing over the conflict's messy
aftermath." I have also seen Blight criticize the program*, harumphing
that it was especially irritating that it was "... punctuated by the
Mississippi writer Shelby Foote." In other words our boys are not
happy with what they view as a continuance of the treatment of the ACW
as "pop history."
Thanks, Carl. I had forgotten that passage completely. Guess I need to read the article a few times more. : )
I haven't seen Blight criticize the program, but I'm not disputing you.
In _Ken Burns' The Civil War: Historians Respond,_ edited by Robert Brent Toplin (1996), Eric Foner has an essay titled "Ken Burns and the Romance of Reunion." I'd say Foner's complaint is more of the whitewashing reconciliationism Blight talks about in _Race and Reunion._ Seems Blight probably feels that way also.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
- A good reason why any published OR quotation needs to be cross checked
against the hard bound!
Guild Press is excellent at accepting typos found in their CD. Send them
Guild Press has done a fantastic job in catching typos, although a few
slipped through. When cross-checked, I find that they were in cases
where the original was printed lightly or blurred.
BTW, I am always amazed at how few typos there are in the original ORs!
Boy, those folk had great spell-checkers on their typesetters!
Judy and Bob Huddleston
10643 Sperry Street
Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
From: Will [mailto:wh_keene@...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 11:07 AM
Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Sometimer's disease
In this instance I had just cut and pasted the text from the ORs at
www.ehistory.com I have found at other times that there are typos
in their text. I think the material there is scanned in and it is
likel that the optic reader misread things such as an 'r' and a 'v'
as an 'n'.
--- In civilwarwest@y..., "carlw4514" <carlw4514@y...> wrote:
> I got a kick out of this typo. Servile for senile, methinks?
> Otherwise I think I might have been marched to the gallows had I
> in those days!
> --- In civilwarwest@y..., "Will" <wh_keene@y...> wrote:
> [...] shall be
> > deemed as inciting senile insurrection, and shall if captured be
> > to death or be otherwise punished at the discretion of the
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to