"The Outlaw Josie Wales", "Segregation Forever" and Asa Carter. Just a taste of the American History

The heart of the thread is to debunk myths, Americans have about themselves and ideas others have about Americans and their Civil War history, specifically as applied by propagandists and popular entertainment mediums.

Sometimes crosstalk about subjects such as the American Civil War depicted in film or popular history, leads to quite spirited debate.



In that video above, there is an independent analysis about American Civil War generals as discussed by another American historian as he plays both of the roles of Billy Yank and Johnny Reb.

Notice: that the viewpoints expressed with spirit are in that form of character play acting and extreme satire? This format in the Artun Shei Films was adopted to teach a certain viewpoint and to get the volatile subject matter past the Youtube censors.

One can learn a lot about propaganda, viewpoint, and audience manipulation in these examples.

The point I am trying to drive home, is to be extremely skeptical of a viewpoint, any viewpoint and to vet assumptions and beliefs on the basis of verified facts or events.

Hence the title of this thread.

Unlike the outlaw, Jose wales Gods and generals actually have the historical accuracy primarily correct, and atun films is the same person who onley wants confederates to be portrayed as bad guys in films. AS for the outlaw Josie wales, it's fiction, yet there are parallels with Bushwhacker Bill Wilson.

any film that deviates from the historical record isn't nearly as good once someone finds out the historical facts Historical fiction often can create certain liberties that make it more appropriate for a filmmaker to stretch the nartive to his level

WHile Atuns films can be educational and are often entertaining, they are also misleading
as he produces his own propaganda through his movies. The kens burn documentary has been dubbed lost cause material. Still, regardless of any narrative, there is much anyone can do in any film to present the facts while having a convenient narrative to support someone's historical baise. If we had to compare an amateur historian Shelby foot's credentials with atuns film people, I think there should be more respect for Shelby foots credentials if one had to judge. However, history and science, for that matter, aren't about judging others based on how brilliant or how trained someone is based on schooling its about facts. Yet our current society would probably sooner pick atun to the right a historical documentary than watch a pro confederate narrative of Shelby's foot. WE shouldn't just dismiss a work just because it is pro confederate; the 1860 southerners are nowhere near the egivlaint of German troops.

Historians and, idealistically, people should hear both points of view from each side of history. The film the free state of johns and glory is both worth watching yet it actually isn't correct to say those films get historical accuracy better than gods and generals. Unfortunately, Gods and Generals have too much going on for it to be filmed. Originally gods and generals was supposed to be a mini-series which it should have been to cover the vast area it was going through. It would have been most ideal if the creators could have made a film out of the mini-series. THat way the work could be clearer that while it was pro confederate it also had pro-union scenes as well as just neutrality.

while people are so critical of the lost cause narrative our society is very guilty of demonizing the south and not properly understanding 19th century
culture Even Volloging through history the professor "who grew up in Yankee town" always had a pro northern pro-union anti-slavery basis. Yet despite his biases he has pointed out there where some fallacies or misconceptions in the Youtubers videos

Missouri had wanted to stay neutral from the American civil war and so did many fellow Americans which I condemn the 7 cotton states for attacking fort Sumter by President Jefferson Davis's orders. apparently, Davis believed the north would just back down,but he miscalculated.


as for June carter someone can still be a very bad person and produce an entertaining or cultural significant piece of art Though I have not read the book

There are unhealthy myths about the lost cause that needs to be addressed by historians and have been as there were fabrications, misunderstandings, romanticism, and overephism in the lost cause phsudu history known as the lost cause.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy

However, much of the lost cause narrative was the South's reaction to the reconstruction policy. It could be said that soldiers who didn't know why they fought for the confederacy side during the civil war sure did after the conflict was over.


BY 1864 I think it was militarily impossible for the South to be able to win the American against the union invader. Still, the South could achieve a more lenient reconstruction under a meclian peace, union democrat victory. So there came the point in the American civil war where it was a lost and glorious cause for the soldiers who signed up defending their homeland, state, and country were to them; the war was about state rights or anything they wanted to make out to be. www.nps.gov/apco/planyourvisit/upload/Why-Confederates-Fought-Final.pdf
By the end of the war and in the checkmate lincoln videos series, johnny rebs begins to see slavery as wrong, just as this symbolizes how some southern were starting to feel the mood. So some of the lost cause is ideology and propaganda to what confederates said at the time.

Slavery was so embedded in the southern system it transformed the south in ways the southerners didn't even notice, but that also included a great dependence on the system with its destruction would cause the south to be destroyed as they were after the civil war under Union occupation. By that point the south was under union northern subjugation and some people during the Civil War very much figured that would happen.

let us look at some of the points of the lost cause using
encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/lost-cause-the/

By the end of the war, when the north was using more ruthless measures, the CSA soldier defending their homeland looked like outright saints than Sherman's soldiers plundering and burning Atlantia.

Women always have to suffer significantly in the war, and Jefferson Davis over-relied on people's devotion to the CSA, particularly the civilian population.

www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/lost-cause-definition-and-origins

If southerners had the opportunity, they would ravage the north, but it would be shorter, and the southerners preferred a defensive strategy.Plus a CSA army on northern soil gives a message about how you like it being invaded and being the victims of total war. It was stupid for the south to start the war by attacking fort sumter ,but it can be changed in a alternative history at least just not reality

The massive amount of union resources and workforce went a long way to help the union cause, but it wasn't the only factor why the north won.
www.bevinalexander.com/books/how-the-south-could-have-won-intro.htm
Indeed the South lost because of mistakes on the battlefield, as shown by the historians' works. I would argue the main reason why the South lost was the fault of its leadership by Jefferson Davis. Unlike Lincoln and the northern generals, the South couldn't afford to make mistakes, especially on the battlefield. Scholars have proved that the civil war outcome wasn't a forgone conclusion just as the people thought at the time, but even with Davis's incompetence, the confederates could have won on the battlefield of battle. It is, however, up to debate how or when the South could have turned the tide from a southern victory into a permanent union defeat. Perhaps ironically, the belief the south couldn't possibly win the civil war I found it more commonly discussed and believed by northerners than among southerners.

While I am more moderate on my southern sympathies, then I hope people perceive I have dealt with the extremes of neo-confederate lost causers as stereotyped in the atun videos and they are exhausting to people be with. However, I have dealt with the other extreme opposite, so let's seek balance in all things.

Even among academic circles in which the north generally has a majority or even a monopoly in power, so let us not pretend they haven't laid misconceptions or baises after all victories; write the history books. Losers can occasionally write history books as like in the instances of the lost cause, but it can sometimes be helpful to look at amateur historians' works or historians who feel indifferent at picking sides during the American civil war, as all historians are meant not to have baises. Unfortunately, some historians feel it necessary to either give disclaimers or their norther baises rebeccafisher.omeka.net/exhibits/show/inductive-reasoning-21st-centu/public-history---amateur-histo/pros-and-cons-of-opening-histo

I think a film shouldn't be denounced because it's pro-CSA; instead, for its inaccuracies, there have been historical films that will still be criticized not for the historical record but for their narrative. For example, films often show the glory of war and not the negatives. Also, movies have refused to add some unbelievable parts in the historical story but were left out because they believed the audience believed the actual events or story were just Hollywood fiction.

I think a magnificent civil war CSA victory alternative history should deal with the presidency as it would have a massive ripple effect and could bring the confederacy advantages to a reality

My boss said you don’t have to agree with different historians' opinions, but you should respect them. To be in the profession of history, it is your job to get other people particularly young people interested in history. It is our job not to tell a particular narrative rather have the visitor or viewer learn about history and letting the facts he made in his mind not our mind. It is important for us to here with different historians have to say including loss Causers. The boss was very correct there isn’t so much absolutes truths in history historians will often say things that have different truths or they’re not fully correct nor incorrect necessarily. Sometimes history is just a mere retelling a tale through different perspectives,view's and even conclusions sometimes using the same data. While I really dislike turtle doves books I can respect The concept of his civil war alternative history books.

I respect the point of view of Checkmate Lincoln knight video’s if a historian is commenting on the videos. It can be helpful to have a probably left or a liberal leaning yankee historical reenactor provide his perspective of American history. As human beings we can’t change what had happened in history but we can during a alternative history and even learn from those historical mistakes.

Of course if Gods and Generals was told from a pro Union northern perspective and still had even more inaccuracies the public and maybe even historians wouldn’t care. However allow me to get straight to the point teaching isn’t without bias so watch out for it. However sometimes biases can be good as long as they’re not dominant as it provides different perspectives and even entertainment such as the checkmate Lincoln videos. However in history we should always try to be as neutral as possible let the viewer not be fooled and think that this Dylan guy isn’t without extreme bias. I saw the extended edition for the first of gods and generals and while it was a pro confederate in General , in had prounion scenes and neutrality in it and it was entertaining to me.

Yeah his YouTube series checkmate Lincoln knight calls the film not only confederate propaganda but argues that it’s politicized,but to say Ron Maxwell was politicizing the film as a falsehood ended and it’s a distortion to current events of the 90s and early 2000s………,

The outlaw Josie Wales is a western film unique when Western genres from losing that steam so they had to produce a unique western film. I honestly thought the outlaw Josie Wales was kind of boring then again I was hoping something more historically accurate so I naturally enjoy gods and generals more.

Some people make comparisons if there was a pro-Nazi film glorifying the Holocaust vs gods and generals showing what it shows and I don’t think those are very good comparisons that at least understand their point.

Suppose if we made a World War II German film that glorified Rommel and emphasize the eastern front more I would so watch it provided it was historically accurate.Valkery arguably could be argued promoting a myth as it shows some of the German army weren’t bad people.

Couldn’t someone argue that Schindler‘s list perhaps showed the Holocaust at its best? The entire point of the movie correct me if I’m wrong is about a man who saves so many people from the death camps .