In Kipling, “White” is descriptive and indicative of cultural differences, not biological determinism. On the other hand:
No doubt the Romans thought that many slaves benefited from slavery, as described in this thread. I’ve seen that argument about other slave states, and generally, I think it’s a croc of shit.
I was fortunate enough to spend a couple of days at Gettysburg early July last year.
Did a couple of the guided tours. Walked as much of the ground as my aging pins could handle. Plenty of my amateur notions were confirmed. Plenty, likely more, were disabused.
Last 4th of July was hot and humid. There was a skiff of rain during the day. However my understanding is that on the days of the battle it was a baking high summer. Hot, dry and little wind. Hence the persistence of the smoke haze. The harvest would have been in. It’s good wheat country. Or it might have been corn. The stubble would have likely been substantial. An attack on the Union centre on the third day across that ground wasn’t unexpected.
Was any thought given to setting fire to the expanse of wheat to the west of the Emmitsburg Road which Pickett’s Charge crossed to, if nothing else, to disrupt their advance? The road itself would have acted as a firebreak.
Accept that the logistics of setting an incendiary trail (using tar, kerosene?) would be problematic. You certainly couldn’t reliable cause ignition using round shot, so it would have to have been done by skirmishers and that’d be a bloody dodgy assignment. Was it simply not the done thing tactically or just too unreliable to consider?
In the Roman Empire you were a slave as you lost a war to the Romans. In race based slavery- you were a slave due to the color of your skin.
Even to the extent that this is true – and it’s clearly not entirely true either in regard to the Americans or the Romans – the Romans shared with Americans —
– as referenced by the house staff in Disney’s “Song of the South”.
Now, I personally liked “Song of the South”, particularly the character “Uncle Remus” and the Acadamy-Award winning song and nominated sound track, but I’m aware that “Song of the South” is not commonly shown on American Television, and I was surprised to see the arguments made for “Song of the South” Roman slavery here.
I disagree with the assertion that Roman Slavery was “less bad” because it wasn’t race-base (it was), or that American slavery was only color based (‘one drop’ racism), or that Roman Slavery was different than American slavery because some fraction of house slaves who weren’t slaving on the plantation “married” their Roman masters, or were able to buy their way to freedom, or that –
I started by asserting that observations about the civilizing influence of Roman Civilization subtly supported English Colonialism. To me, arguments that Rome was not an oppressive slave state, for the same reasons that the South used in their defense of their slave system, are not persuasive.
There are no Slaves in Song of the South. That is a base canard. The film is set after the end of the Civil war and the ratification of the 13th Amendment. So, there are no “arguments made for “Song of the South” Roman slavery here.” because there are no slaves in that film.
And yes-
is simplistic.
However, there was continued competition building bigger and better ships (after a rather long treaty break) leading up to and incuding WWII, where navies, including even ships without planes, turned out the be anything but duds.
The Civil War only saw limited use of repeating guns, but there were plenty of subsequent wars which should have given the generals pause.
The Jesuits were the first organized group to bring canon to Japan, but Perry brought with him modern cannons, which outranged those of the Japanese, who were still learning the art of manufacturing things that go boom.
Gunships could do considerable damage to houses and such, but it was always difficult for floating things to sink well-designed and reinforced land things. Not completely impossible, but also not easy.
I suppose it would depend on how dry the forest was and if your troops were surrounded by that same forest as well.
The ironclads were part of the revolution in naval technology at the time. The other game-changer was steam ships. The French realized they were behind the British in the steam ship arms race and jumped into ironclads, hoping to gain ground (gain water? bad metaphor alert).
As you noted, countries kept building bigger and badder ships.
Yes, I wasn’t implying slavery in the Roman Empire was a good thing. It simply solved a problem “what do we do with the people we conquered?” Rather than leave a large concentration of people who had just fought a major war, who could rebel again - the implication being that a small administrative Roman garrison could be overrun easily - the simplest solution was to take and disperse the warrior and adminstrative class widely across the established empire where they could not easily assemble and rebel, and settle larger numbers of Romans in the conquered area. It had a logic, even if it doesn’t seem OK to modern thought. But then, Southern slavery doesn’t seem OK to modern thought either. (Because it’s not)
Another alternative was to take the entire inhabitants of a rebelling city once it was overrun and crucify them along the highway out of town. Or slaughter everyone and seed the ground with salt so nobody could ever return. Usually these solutions applied to those who hadn’t learned their lesson the first time or two.
Similarly, enslaving the poorer class of those who could not afford to feed themselves seemed like a viable alternative to the welfare state in a less rich time.
This was what I recall reading about slavery at the time too. Slave occupations varied from those who worked to death on vast farms, toiled in the salt mines (recalling the old movie Barabbas), gladiators who killed each other for entertainment or to feed the wildlife, to those who were educated Greeks and tutors to the sons of the master. The latter were almost like a member of the household (…that could be killed or sold…)
Worst off were the public slaves, who were owned by the city and lived in slave barracks, and were used for dirty, dangerous or life-shortening work. Like rental cars, nobody much cared about long-term care & maintenance for them.
I’m sorry if someone who had never seen the film, and had no exposure to the controversy it caused, might have taken that meaning from my comments about the way it restated pro-slavery arguments for the South.
I have not only seen it, but I have read- Who is Afraid of Song of the South, by Jim Korkis, the Disney expert and prolific author. It does nothing of the sort.
The film takes place in the U.S. state of Georgia during the Reconstruction era, a period of American history after the end of the American Civil War and the abolition of slavery.
One NAACP member who said it was racist and horrible and has slaves- never even bothered to actually - you know- see the film.
You seem to be asserting that because the Uncle Remus stories were framed in the Reconstruction era, the film did not restate racist cliches used to support slavery.
That is not a position I agree with.
I think the main critique of Foote is, he is clearly an engaging speaker and writer and adds much color - his lower south accent is not heard as much any more (like that of Jimmy Carter). But he is first and foremost an author, and does not source his all of his work. He offers plenty of lively anecdotes. The more academic historians in the series were somewhat sidelined in favor of the novelist Foote. Of course, this gets to a central question in history, should the field be dominated by academic researchers - maybe more analytical and fact driven but less engaging to the public - or master storytellers? His placing of Forrest as something of an “equal” to Lincoln is another case in point. Foote is maybe a prime example of a “kinder gentler” Lost Cause figure. He is not spewing hateful talk and seems, on the whole, conciliatory to the North, but offers a largely romantic view of the Southern military cause.
There probably wasn’t enough time to observe that the Confederates were advancing, think of the idea of starting a firebreak in front of them, gather the supplies to start the fires, and then go out an actually do it. By the time that happened, the Confederates would have crossed the field and arrived at the American lines.
The Americans instead decided to turn back the attack using the tools they had ready; cannons and rifles.
The trouble with Song of the South is that it ignores the issues of the Jim Crow south, and presents the ex-slaves(?) around grandpa’s plantation as happy-go-lucky, well fed, decently dressed, respectful servants and workers who knew their place and were well-treated by their paternalistic employer. It made a too-good representation of the situation, and potrayed the situation as white people probably wanted to believe it was. The bits I’ve seen - I fast-forwarded through some of it - would be more racist in their “why are you complaining?” sort of presentation of the black situation. There’s no scenes, for example, where Uncle Remus or the others, or the black playmates, are told “you can’t come in here” or anything like that.
From the clothing and horse-and-carriage it does appear to be set at least 1900 or earlier.
Of course, it’s a reflection of the time in which it was made. There are plenty worse, actually offensive depictions of black people in Hollywood in that era. But to Disney’s credit, they;ve recognized the problem and restricted its availability for quite a while. (Much as Peter Pan, with its depiction of North American natives, is “iffy” today… especially with a song like Why is the Red Man Red? )
The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there.
-L.P. Hartley
Never mind. Replied in new thread (linked at bottom of preceding post).
Because the film did not.
Yeah, it’s not loud and pushed in your face, but his love of NBF shows where his true beliefs are. I red the Oxford History of the US Civil war- Forrest was mentioned once- in a list of successful CSA cavalry raiders.
Yes, like pretty much all Disney films, it sugar coats history or myth.
Gone with with Wind for example- which is still on several lists of best films.
The thing you have to realize, that the “indians”- much like the pirate and the mermaids- were british children’s idea/fantasy of what “indians” etc were. The Indians are not realistic, but nor are the mermaids and certainly not the pirates.
I think you had a few questions here that have gone (so far) without answers.
Ironclads served on the Mississippi (the most notable being the City-class aka “Pook Turtles”), but not the USS Monitor. The Union had already invested in ironclads before the Merrimack steamed out for battle, and the Monitor was chosen in part because John Ericsson (the eccentric Swede) guaranteed it could be built and launched by February 1862, earlier than other bids. Postwar, Ericsson worked on applications of heated air engines and on powered torpedoes (not the floating mines or spar devices of the war era).
Union generalship in the Civil War is a huge topic. Keep in mind that the Army grew over four years by a factor of 60; only a few of the most senior officers had commanded a unit as large as a brigade during the war with Mexico. The Union also had myriad political generals, selected largely for their influence with various parts of the Republican coalition rather than battle experience. Many such generals gained early promotion, which gave them seniority over more able general who were promoted later after battlefield success.
The Confederacy sent a column under General Sibley to take New Mexico, and from there move on to the gold fields of Colorado and California. He was eventually beaten by Colorado volunteers at Glorieta Pass in New Mexico and forced to retreat back to Texas due to the advance of the California Column through present-day Arizona and New Mexico.
Part of the reason for the debacle of the Battle of the Crater was that the division of black troops that had been trained in the correct tactics for the assault was replaced by order of General Meade on the eve of the battle (either because he was wary of the repercussions of sending black troops into a probable high-casualty situation, or because he lacked confidence in their fighting ability). The divison eventually used in the attack was commanded by a drunkard who did not exercise control over his men when the assault was happening. All in all, it was a mess.
The war started at Fort Sumter, not First Bull Run; but yes, it is odd that Wilmer McLean was owned a farm both near Manassas and later moved to Appomattox where the war ended.
Why assume the movie was set during the Reconstruction era? There’s no sign of that in the movie.
It seems a lot more likely it was set in the Redemption era, which is when the books were written.