Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

You've loaded an old revision of the document! If you save it, you will create a new version with this data.

====== 1 Errors in fact ======

In the film it depicts that it was the soldier’s idea to refuse the money but in actuality it was Shaw that encouraged them not to take it. However, in the film it makes it seem that Shaw went along with their idea which was to probably make it more dramatic since the soldiers were all rallying together. --- //[[lkacoyan@umw.edu|Kacoyanis, Leah F.]] 2016/10/11 19:07//

One large error in fact I found came through Soldier Rawlins' dialogue during his efforts to put Trip in his place. He said something along the lines of "the Union soldiers have been fighting for you" (which can be read, and I understood, as "your freedom"), "for the past three years." **The Union's motives to fight did not originate from a desire for emancipation but rather reunification**, and only towards the latter end of the war did these motives change.  --- //[[afanghel@umw.edu|Fanghella, Amy E.]] 2016/10/12 12:16//

The regiment’s climactic assault against Battery Wagner, the Confederate stronghold guarding Charleston harbor, actually took place from south to north, rather than north to south as depicted in the movie.The regiment was also not all comprised of escaped slaves fight to free the others after the EP, but rather those free in Massachusetts wanting to prove their worthiness as citizens of the union, who the character Thomas. **I feel like since this movie is primarily based off of Shaw’s letters, its from the prospective of the white elite.** --- //[[nsciadin@umw.edu|Natalie Sciadini]] 2016/10/12 4:09//

I can’t help but thinking that when Robert went into the building to get new shoes for the soldiers that flipping a few cans and making a wreck of the shelves would have actually got the clerk to give him 700 pairs of shoes. **Would it have been that easy for Shaw to scare a man into giving him all the shoes and supplies he needed?** --- //[[abrooks6@umw.edu|Brooks Anna R.]] 2016/10/12 18:48//

As far as showing an accurate representation I wont nit pick on small aspects as frequently done in these blogs. However, **I did find that movie lacked in a specific yet very important aspect of the war... disease.** At the very beginning of the movie the audience was thrown into action and witnessed the ramifications of war.#diseases #"AntiupandKickin"  --- //[[jbaker8@umw.edu|Baker, Jonathon A.]] 2016/10/12 19:27//

A surprising fact that I found: **flogging was out of practice in the Union army in 1861. Rendering the scene where Pvt. Trip is whipped anachronistic for the sake of giving the film a dramatic moment.** Additionally, the scene where Col. Shaw is riding through a series of posts, slicing watermelons, seems somewhat comical knowing that the scene takes place at the end of Fall/beginning of Winter in New England: a time rather notorious for it's lack of fruit requiring a near tropical climate for growth.  --- //[[ccooney@umw.edu|Cooney, Corey R.]] 2016/10/12 20:59//

**The movie shows the 54th Massachusetts regiment as an assortment of black people from all different backgrounds. This includes some that were free, ex-slaves, and a ditch digger to name a few. However, the 54th was an elite unit made up of many prominent blacks from all over the North. They were assembled that way to make sure the unit was seen in a positive light. Another problem with the movie is that it ends with the Fort Wagner assault as if all the soldiers died there. However, about half of the unit stayed intact and continued fighting in the South.**
--- //[[nhouff@umw.edu|Houff, Nicholas T.]] 2016/10/12 22:13//

Like most historic based films, Glory has its share of oversights in the name of cinematic veneer. In researching inaccuracies within the film, I discovered that there were several noteworthy characters absent from the screenplay, like Shaw’s wife, and two sons of Frederick Douglass, a factual character used in the film ….. **Why in the hell would a non-fictional film about the 54th Massachusetts regiment, introduce an iconic figure of history like Frederick Douglass, and not show (nor even mention) the FACT that he had two sons whom had volunteered and served with that very regiment??? Anyways, the film faintly perceives the 54th as a unit of runaway slaves from the southern states, and although many of the Black Union soldiers at the time did fit that profile, the 54th consisted of mostly freemen from Massachusetts and other northern states.**  By the end of the film, viewers might unknowingly perceive the events portrayed within as a favorable disparity for racial equality based on some of the more inspirational, ”feel good moments”. Back in reality, the battle for any kind of (humanistic) equality was still very much an uphill one and years away.   //Additional sources - ashbrook.org + cwmemory.com//
 --- //[[dblount@umw.edu|Blount, David M.]] 2016/10/12 22:55//

**//Glory// fails to portray Frederick Douglass' sons, Lewis and Charles, who served in the 54th Massachusetts Regiment. This is odd considering that, in the beginning of the film, a scene is dedicated to the reverence of Douglass.** In this scene, the room waits with bated breath for Douglass' wise words and knowing looks. This would have been the ideal time to introduce Lewis and Charles, but, alas. I question the film's motivation for excluding such notable figures, as Douglass' sons are crucial to the 54th being remembered as an elite regiment.  --- //[[nmilroy@umw.edu|Milroy, Nancy E.]] 2016/10/13 00:45//

As other people have pointed out, **the 54th was not made mostly out of runaway or freed slaves as in the movie, but actually mostly free northern African Americans from Massachusetts. I feel that the film probably tried to make them more Southern because it would make a more emotional connection with audiences**, but it definitely sacrifices some historical accuracy. There is also a scene in the original cut where an extra is wearing a digital watch. 
 --- //[[dhawkins@umw.edu|Hawkins Daniel C.]] 2016/10/13 03:57//
====== 2 Things the Movie got right ======
I think one of the things that movie got right was the white union troops attitudes towards the all black regiment. In the movie they even have a white union solider say **“I'd rather have a hog than a nigger At least you could eat the hog!” which to me is important in portraying accurate attitudes of white soldiers to black soldiers.** Also, a little more obvious thing they got right was Shaw dying, not only that but the means of him leading a charge and being shot and dying. Although this seems minor, to me it is actually pleasing that the filmmakers kept this part. They could have easily held off the death and have the viewers continue to watch the battle and them fading out in some other part and saying Shaw died. However, they kept it and made it a climatic part of the movie. Was it a little dramatic? Yes. But let’s be honest, this movie needed it.  --- //[[mmcmaken@mail.umw.edu|Mary-Margaret McMaken]] 2016/10/11 17:58//

Something the film did get right or at least tried to get right was the diversity among the African Americans who joined the Union army. In an attempt to capture the differences between the men all four of the primary 54th soldiers that the film follows are extremely different from one another. **Even with the readings I feel that perhaps the diversity of the 54th may have been over stated. That being said I understand why the film does this as it is trying to encompass all of those men who decided to fight for the Union. It even included the young drummer boy. While not always successful in doing so the film clearly makes a strong attempt (certainly more then the other films we have seen this semester) to portray different points of view among African American soldiers and their reasons for fighting for the Union.**--- //[[cliberty@umw.edu|Liberty, Catherine A.]] 2016/10/11 18:55//

**The movie got right that the African American soldiers were payed 3 dollar less than white soldiers. It shows that the north did have racial biases towards to the colored soldiers and saw them as inferior.** The protest was also accurate in that they refused to take the money until the problem was fixed, which thankfully it eventually did. --- //[[lkacoyan@umw.edu|Kacoyanis, Leah F.]] 2016/10/11 19:07//

At the beginning of the movie, when Shaw is wounded in the battle of Antietam, he wakes up to African Americans loading wounded onto stretches and even digging graves. African-Americans in actuality did provide medical care and even dug graves for the Union Army. Another instance of accuracy took place when Shaw struggled to receive shoes, uniforms, and rifles for his unit. There is evidence that the receiving process took a long time, and while I’m not sure if Shaw actually stormed into the bases’ quarter master and demanded supplies, the struggle portrayed by the movie is accurate. **Another instance of accuracy is when soldiers are given manual labor. Black units were used likely for manual labor, as Shaws’ men are.** 
 --- //[[ejames@umw.edu|James, Emily B.]] 2016/10/12 09:24//

Speaking of military accuracy, I have noticed how the film takes advantage of its R-rating to show the carnage and brutality of war (something my film, Gettysburg, doesn’t show). One example is in the opening scene, when the one soldier gets his head blown off by cannon pressure. Another scene, is when a soldier’s foot is bleeding after marching with improper shoes. --- //[[jgaddie@umw.edu|Gaddie, Jason]] 2016/10/12 17:04//

I really enjoyed noting many accuracies in a lot of the more particular details. For instance, **the book that Thomas was reading was full of Transcendentalist writings, and was a nod to the influence of romanticism on the depictions of war and the view some of the colored soldiers who were literate freedmen may have had. The letter writing monologues, however cheesy, illustrated how Union soldiers' motives for the war evolved overtime from the goal of reunification to the goal of emancipation.** My favorite was the parade scene; I was not sure it actually happened, but found that it did! (http://www.masshist.org/online/54thregiment/essay.php?entry_id=528). It showed how the colored soldiers, and the 54th regiment as a whole, earned the respect of skeptical (and extremely racist) fellow soldiers (think, Mulcahy's slightly reluctant salute), as well as many people of the Union. Most influential was the scene where they panned through the crowd of colored townspeople, and you got to see the looks on the soldiers' faces and African American citizens' faces simultaneously. This powerfully depicted the confidence that the 54th Massachusetts Regiment instilled in the African American peoples and the precedent they set for countless decades to come.  --- //[[afanghel@umw.edu|Fanghella, Amy E.]] 2016/10/12 12:21//

**In the scene where the soldiers are gathering around for a 'spiritual', Trip is asked to testify, and the camera captures his hope and fear, pride and shame, his love for his newfound family. “Doesn’t matter much what happens tomorrow, does it?” he says. “Because we’re men, ain’t we?” For me, this scene captured the emotions of the soldiers and their need to fight this war.** Throughout the movie that theme is present yes, but the unexpected emotion of a stubborn harheaded character brings it to light, you notice the emotion more from a who character seemed tough at the start and is now becoming all gooey inside. --- //[[nsciadin@umw.edu|Natalie Sciadini]] 2016/10/12 4:32//

One issue that I believe the move was able to accomplish was the tense relationship between almost everyone in the movie. Having an all black regiment would have cause tense and forced relations between many different people in many different positions. The movie shows how each interaction is unique one. --- //[[abrooks6@umw.edu|Brooks Anna R.]] 2016/10/12 18:50//

Glory, as a movie, did a pretty good job with the racial feelings of the north towards African Americans. What impressed me more was the fact that the movie was pretty spot on with the pay. I took a class last semester on the civil war. One of the movies we watched was glory (and we read a book on the same subject). I learned that the pay dispute lasted all the way past Robert Shawn death.  --- //[[rpratt@mail.umw.edu|Robert Pratt]] 2016/10/12 19:48//

The burning of the town Darien was right and an actual event in history. Also, the frontal assault on Fort Wagner was correct.
--- //[[nhouff@umw.edu|Houff, Nicholas T.]] 2016/10/12 22:18//

**The film captured a general portrayal of white enlisted and Union officer (negative) attitude towards the notion of black (fighting) soldiers. This inequality was extended to their lack of inadequate attire (shoes and uniforms) and disproportionate wages as conveyed in the film.** Despite their nonsuccess during the seizure on Ft. Wagner, the bravery demonstrated by the 54th had inspired the (northern) masses and had essentially proven black soldiers were not only combat capable, but also as valuable assets for a Union victory. This newfound admiration in lieu of disdain is somewhat discernible throughout the duration of the film’s timeline, though it is more likely that this prolific respect was attained as a result of heroism displayed by the 54th at Ft. Wagner, since their martyrdom was paramount in revising public opinion. **The film also communicated the shallow, unmarked mass graves used by the Confederacy to bury the deceased soldiers of the black regiment and its white officers. Though there was no mention of it in the film, this was an irregular, contemptuous method of corpse disposal which the Confederacy justified by claiming proprietary rights to the black soldiers, labeling them as insurrectionists, and the white officers, their advocates.** -//communitytable.parade.com//  --- //[[dblount@umw.edu|Blount, David M.]] 2016/10/12 22:19//

This was the first time I’ve seen this film and I have to admit, I really liked it. I felt like it captured the tension between the white and black Union soldiers by showing the lack of respect and appreciation they felt towards one another. Shaw was portrayed as the moral character that was above the racist tendencies of the army but also understood his role as a military disciplinary. **I think that the Civil War is over simplified in its remembrance on both the part of the North and the South. The South remembers it as a war of northern aggression and the North tends to remember it as a moral battle between the abolitionists and the barbaric slaveholders in the south.** Lastly, my favorite part about this movie was that they did not include an irrelevant love story that had nothing to do with the history of  the film.  --- //[[lrainfor@umw.edu|Rainford, Lauren E.]] 2016/10/12 23:17//

As we had talked about in class, the Union army seemed to have a way with words and finding loopholes. This was seen when Shaw said that he did not have to follow the rules because he was not a commissioned officer after he refused pay with his men.  --- //[[khaynes3@umw.edu|Haynes, Kelly E.]] 2016/10/12 23:38//

**//Glory// succeeds in conveying the freedmen's pride in the Union's recognition of their personhood and service. In reality, service changed black Americans. Soldiers had newfound confidence and esteem, and were equipped with new skills and opportunities for life after the Civil War. This newfound confidence is portrayed well in the film. The soldiers had focused postures and faces, and desired to wear uniforms and shoes like their white counterparts. The film is historically accurate in this way, conveying the relationship between black agency/personhood and Union service/uniforms.**  --- //[[nmilroy@umw.edu|Milroy, Nancy E.]] 2016/10/13 01:14//

The film showed a lot of tension between not only whites and African Americans during the war, but also tension between members of the 54th regiment. There was also more focus on how battle worked with the speed of reloading and the importance of the right shoes when compared to some other films like The Patriot. The film also showed the effects of PTSD on people like Shaw, where films like The Patriot, which was made much later than Glory, did not make it a significant point.
 --- //[[mcarey@umw.edu|Carey Megan A.]] 2016/10/13 01:34//

====== 3 Questions about interpretation ======
Frequently through the film there is a valorization of Shaw and his actions, especially in the later half of the film. The dramatic yet inspiring theme music plays behind him as he sends out orders. In class we even discussed how Shaw’s death was actually valorized and turned him into a martyr for a cause. Despite that the film does have moments where Shaw is portrayed as colder and unsure of himself. The scenes where he distances himself from Thomas or orders whipping on Trip are examples of this other side. Does the film use these moments then to show the flaws in Shaw’s own character or are they to further glorify his later change in leadership? As a character we view him most positively in the beginning and then in the end of the film. While the middle section creates a grey area. Ultimately did this film intend to valorize Shaw in the way that it did? --- //[[cliberty@umw.edu|Liberty, Catherine A.]] 2016/10/11 19:12//

I agree with Catherine, romanticizing Shaw bothered me. Throughout the movie, although there was black soldiers’ character development Shaw’s transformation was paramount. The film developed like Trip, Thomas, and John Rawlins however my question is why not make the movie from their point of view? Why does the story have to be told by Shaw? I see this trend, where a white character tells the story of people of color and I have to ask why. While Shaw is memorialized by many, most of the black characters in the film are fictional. I understand that we have a collection of Shaw’s letters, but why are all the characters of color fictionalized? While I enjoyed the movie, I had to wonder why the film centered on white mans’ redemption instead of understanding the event through African American experience.  --- //[[ejames@umw.edu|James, Emily B.]] 2016/10/12 09:47//

The mute drummer boy was an interesting addition, and since he didn't get a name or obviously any dialogue, it makes me think that he may have been a characterization of a bigger theme, idea, or symbolically placed by the directors to provoke further thought. What might he have been a symbol of? Did he draw any thoughts from you as a viewer, historian, or both? Why was he mute? Also going off of Emily's comment a little bit, but just kind of wondering in general, what was the importance of the name changes of some of the colored characters versus using their actual ones? I specifically wonder about the name Jupiter; maybe it was characterizing his great dream of being "a boy in blue" and fighting for ideals that then only seemed attainable in dreams (aka, freedom). --- //[[afanghel@umw.edu|Fanghella, Amy E.]] 2016/10/12 12:03//

Did the whipping actually happen ? When the 54th marches into South Carolina, they encounter another black regiment led by Colonel James Montgomery.  What do you make of this controversial scene, and why do you think Zwick included it? --- //[[nsciadin@umw.edu|Natalie Sciadini]] 2016/10/12 4:11//

I was upset by the fact that this film, about a black regiment during the Civil War, was from the point of view of their white captain. This is disappointing because of the lost opportunities of having it be from the POV of one of the black soldiers. Like Emily wrote above, it also would have been nice for there to have been included more depictions of actual soldiers rather than so many fictional characters. As we learned in class, there were prominent members of the 54th regiment, such as Frederick Douglass’ sons that this film could have touched on. As we discussed with The Patriot, did this use of mostly fictional characters provide the filmmakers with more leeway on historical accuracy? Was the use of fictional characters to help show the range in backgrounds that the soldiers came from? --- //[[cmorg96@gmail.com|Callie Morgan]] 2016/10/12 15:34//

A lot of the choices in choosing, training, and deploying the regiment were much more deliberate than depicted in the film. For instance, the troops in the actual 54th regiment were actually mostly elite, not as mixed with. Shaw was very aware of the significance of training black troops. They were preparing for this before they were formed instead of gathering a group seemingly last minute. While this is inaccurate to the actual facts, the mix of the troops is very representative of the actual makeup of black soldiers across the country at that time--- many if which were runaway slaves from border states and in the south and free black men. I think this reality justifies the inaccuracy, because although not true to that particular regiment, it depicts the general reality of black soldiers (the make up as well as other characteristics).--Julia Peterson

In class we spoke of a few important individuals to the history the movie is depicting. I was wondering if some of the characters in the movie were based off of real individuals like Lewis and Charles Douglas. In previous weeks have spoke of the power and freedom not specifically limiting a character to an actual individual, but was wondering if any of the characters can be identified in the movie. (other then Shaw and other obvious ones) --- //[[jbaker8@umw.edu|Baker, Jonathon A.]] 2016/10/12 19:42//

I think the theme of racial reconciliation between black and white people in this movie is way too centralized. The ending of the movie particularly emphasizes the new respect between Trip and Shaw, with the closing shot of them dead together in the dunes. This racial catharsis is for the sake of the viewers and makes the story seem false and overly political. However, this does make it a great primary source of this time, as political correctness was a primary social concern. White people were trying to reassure themselves that there weren't great issues of racism, that those were in the past, and that current society was colorblind. This movie fits into that narrative, not shying away from racist behavior completely, but overstating Shaw and other white characters respect and sense of equality with the black characters. --Julia Peterson

In the film it felt like almost all the African Americans who joined the 54th were run away slaves. How many run always joined the 54th and how many were free men? Did the film over represent the runaways for any particular reason? Just a few questions I had while watching the film. --- //[[rpratt@mail.umw.edu|Robert Pratt]] 2016/10/12 19:50//

I noticed both in Glory and in Amistad, there were abolitionists who did and said things that seemed to go against the ideas they were for. In Amistad it was the whole “making the Africans into martyrs” idea, in Glory it was Shaw allowing for the whipping of the soldiers. While I can kind of understand why he would allow it as a way to treat them equally, it still doesn’t seem right. Do any of you have an idea of why these film makers decided to make the abolitionist say and do things that seemed so out of character? --- //[[mlindse2@umw.edu|Lindsey, Megan E.]] 2016/10/12 20:43//

The filmmakers appeared to favor tempering reality with a flair for the dramatic. The regiment under Col. Montgomery that pillaged a town, acting as raiders stealing valuables for a greedy Gen. Harker. While I do not doubt that there were in fact regiments that would pillage captured towns, I do question whether they consisted of painfully stereotypical depictions of uneducated, savage black men ready to rape and pillage at the drop of a hat. In the process of showing how disciplined the 54th were, the filmmakers end up comparing them to an exceedingly racist stereotype. Whether this is anachronistic for the time period or not, I cannot say.  --- //[[ccooney@umw.edu|Cooney, Corey R.]] 2016/10/12 20:59//

Something that I noticed about a lot of the films we’ve watched so far is that, while they are war films, a lot of them are more violent than what might be necessary. I understand the filmmakers want to show the reality of war and how horrible it is, but I feel that filmmakers of American history tend to make films only about war. When you look up films about American history, you find mostly movies like Glory, Gone With the Wind, Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down, and the Patriot. For most of American history, the country has been at war, but I feel like filmmakers do not see history the way most modern historians do. The Civil War especially is something that touched all Americans and defined this country, but I wonder why filmmakers focus so much on war in American history instead of other events or trends like the invention of the light bulb or the immigration waves around 1900?
 --- //[[mcarey@umw.edu|Carey Megan A.]] 2016/10/13 01:34//

====== 4 Movie as a Primary Source about the time in which it was made ======

This movie shows progression towards a more tolerant America, as some of the actors in the movie would have been old enough to participate in the Civil Rights movement.  Both Morgan Freeman and Denzel Washington are old enough to have joined in the Civil Rights movement or at least have memories of it.  What a change 20 years can make. -Christian Trout

I agree that this film shows how the United States had become more tolerant. Having this film accurately portray the will and heart of the African-Americans who fought, while acknowledging that they faced racism from Union soldiers, is a great way to honor and commemorate the actual 54th regiment and what they did in advancing the rights of other African-Americans to fight. --- //[[nfanning@umw.edu|Fanning Neal R.]] 2016/10/12 19:59//

I believe this movie is a primary source of its time because it showed PTSD caused by war. This was a common showing in movies after Vietnam, as it became more public to the United States that PTSD was a serious issue among soldiers. It also is a primary source for its time because of the amount of diversity. It was becoming more common for movies to involve more people of color, and this movie perfectly showcases that with the majority of its cast being black. --- //[[mlindse2@umw.edu|Lindsey, Megan E.]] 2016/10/12 20:30//

The movie showcases the diversity of African Americans throughout the nation rather effectively, going from second generation freemen to former slaves with thick accents remaining in their dialogue. Better yet, the movie showed these types of people interacting with each other, not just with white men, and it showed them struggling to understand one another. This sort of interaction lets us see the evolution of movies from having token black characters to having authentic characters who are black. This isn't entirely the standard now, but the success of such movies does give some hope that times were changing.  --- //[[lmccuist@umw.edu|Lindsey McCuistion]] 2016/10/12 21:00//

Even though it was made in 1989, Glory was pretty progressive film and reflected changing racial attitudes in the United States. I grew up watching Glory every now and then, and the impression that I got from my family was that the film actually changed the landscape for African American actors in Hollywood. It also portrayed the African American characters in the film as complex human beings and as people who played an important part in changing history, instead of letting white characters take the lead. This helped to address decades of misrepresentation and/or underrepresentation in American film and to pave the way for future American history films focusing on African Americans.
 --- //[[dhawkins@umw.edu|Hawkins Daniel C.]] 2016/10/13 03:58//
 --- //[[dhawkins@umw.edu|Hawkins Daniel C.]] 2016/10/13 03:58//
====== 5 Comparing the reading to the movie ======

While watching the film, I didn’t think much of the burning of the town of Darien. I had assumed that that was probably a made-up or composite town and mission. But, this act and the controversy surrounding it is written about by James Henry Gooding, a member of the 54th, in On the Altar of Freedom. The people were upset not only because their small town was burned down but because of the fact that it was done by black soldiers.  --- //[[cmorg96@gmail.com|Callie Morgan]] 2016/10/12 15:34//

In the film, the 54th Massachusetts is shown protesting their wages. In the letter by James Henry Gooding, his 54th Massachusetts (which came later), also protested their wages, with Gooding writing to Abraham Lincoln directly. During the war, wages were 13 dollars for whites, and 10 dollars for blacks. In the pretext, it is written that Congress didn’t equalize pay until the tail end of the war. --- //[[jgaddie@umw.edu|Gaddie, Jason]] 2016/10/12 17:42//

Certain aspects of the James Henry Gooding reading were shown in the film, such as his behavior towards the African Americans.  “It really makes ones heart swell with pride as he looks upon the stout and brawny men, fully equipped with Uncle Sam’s accouterments upon them, practically refuting the base assertions reiterated by copperheads and traitors that the black race are incapable of patriotism, valor or ambition.” Christian Trout

I had read Susie King Taylor's memoir prior to watching the movie, so I was keeping an eye out for the women like her who might have been in the Union camps and contributing to the wellbeing of the soldiers, but we barely saw a woman throughout the entire movie. Her accounts also mentioned disease quite frequently, but disease is hardly an issue in the movie, as well. Still, her positive attitude toward the camp in which she worked and the officers who led her regiment does show in the movie. The 54th regiment greatly admires Shaw throughout the movie and develops a kinship with those in their camp.  --- //[[lmccuist@umw.edu|Lindsey McCuistion]] 2016/10/12 21:01//

====== 6 The "So, what?" question ======
So why make a movie? Well I think it is important in terms of the idea of how the Civil War is taught. To be completely honest, until high school, I was under the impression that the Civil War was mainly white men fighting other white men for the emancipation of slaves. It never actually occurred to me that other people other than white people fought in this war. That came out super racists and I apologize but that is the truth. In many high schools, we are given the white man’s history. The history of victory, not defeat and this part of history clearly shows not only how we interpret history but also how we portray it. Therefore, this movie is needed for people like me, who honestly fall into the trap of a white man’s victorious history.  --- //[[mmcmaken@mail.umw.edu|Mary-Margaret McMaken]] 2016/10/11 18:16//

Maggie, you are right and shouldn't apologize because that unfortunately is the truth! I experienced the same view of the Civil War through previous education and think that all too frequent lack of accurate education in primary and secondary school gives the film industry a more crucial responsibility to choose accuracy over entertainment value. This theme of responsibility of the films keeps popping up in class discussion, and there must be a reason why!  --- //[[afanghel@umw.edu|Fanghella, Amy E.]] 2016/10/12 12:06//

We don't get the view of the minority, Its good to get a different view than what is normally taught. Its also good to have a different perceptive of race and how it affected the blacks view of race, especially of the union (South slave owners sending in their slaves for them).The film proves to be a truly uplifting experience and an important history lesson, a valuable reminder that despite what the history books say (or, more precisely, what they do not say), blacks played a critically important role in the North's victory over the South--forever changing the evolution of America. --- //[[nsciadin@umw.edu|Natalie Sciadini]] 2016/10/12 4:44//

I believe that this is a very important movie about African-American struggle during the Civil War. As the three people above me have mentioned, the usual suspicion of Virginian-schooled kids is that the war was white vs white and the slaves just sat there waiting to be liberated. But they did so much more than that and this movie shows that. Even though that slaves sat and waited might be the usual assumption by people like me, I also would have said something like "yeah, ok that makes sense" if someone told me runaway slaves joined the Union army. But for the time, that idea would have been crazy to many northerners, and this film also shows that which makes it even more important.  --- //[[nfanning@umw.edu|Fanning Neal R.]] 2016/10/12 20:02//

I think this movie was significant in several ways. One was showing an important part of Civil War era history. Another was having a movie where the heroes don’t exactly prevail, but they show an immense amount of courage. My only problem with the movie is that at the end all of the white soldiers from various units seem willing and proud to serve with African Americans which wasn’t a reality.  --- //[[khaynes3@umw.edu|Haynes, Kelly E.]] 2016/10/12 23:36//

When we watched the Patriot a few weeks ago, I asked what the point was in remaking a story about a war that happened centuries ago. This movie is one of the exceptions. Instead of repeating the story that we already know, this movie talks about a regiment that isn’t common knowledge and knowing about its existence is a vital part of understanding the true story of the Civil War. For so long, the history of the war was white washed, so understanding the complex nature of the war is critical to getting the full picture. Movies have the ability to convey a story that isn’t expressed in high school textbooks.  --- //[[lrainfor@umw.edu|Rainford, Lauren E.]] 2016/10/12 23:36//

Edit summary

Note: By editing this page you agree to license your content under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International