The Civil War in unexpected places.

I am always surprised where I find mentions to the Civil War. For instance, I enjoy watching streams of popular video games. Sometimes, these streams show advertisements, just like regular television programs. Well today, the ad that I got to watch was actually about 5 minutes long (even though it gave me a chance to skip it after 5 seconds.) However, I stuck it out and was rewarded with a hilarious cross over between Gears of War and the Civil War. For those of you who don't know, Gears of War is a popular video game that is published for Microsofts Xbox 360. The general gist of the commercial was that these two groups of reenactors (Civil War and Locust War from GoW) had booked the same field on the same day. They decided to go through with both reenactments, with the Confederates teaming up with the evil locusts, and the CoGs (heros of the GoW universe) with the Union. What ensued was a hilarious attempt at making the futuristic CoG soldiers into nostalgic Civil War soldiers, complete with botched speeches from General Grant. And as the dust settles, and the "main character" of the commercial lays dying, we are treated to his last thoughts before the end the reenactment.


PS:

I did some digging, it turns out that the commercial is actually a Funny or Die sketch. Even Better. Here is a link so people can check it out. It starts at about 9:42, but hopefully my link takes everyone there.

White History Month Curriculum

I always seem to find two things when I actually sit down to do a blog. This one comes courtesy of something that was posted by a friend of mine on Facebook. I had blogged earlier on Black History Month, and despite it being over now its not like we can't get a laugh out of some satire about the point of a "White History Month." Click the Link below and enjoy.

http://storify.com/brokeymcpoverty/whitehistoryclasses

These Honored Dead

So I’ve actually been assigned something to put on this blog. I have to make up a few questions in regards to Tom Desjardin’s These Honored Dead. I actually struggle with just making up questions in regards to readings. So instead. I am going to type out some thoughts and hopefully questions will come from this. Heck, maybe no one will even see this introduction and I am just rambling to myself.

Desjardin is dealing with the inherent issue with Civil War History, that being that much of what we know about the war, and in the case of the book, Gettysburg, is what has been gathered from the memories of veterans. But the problem is, these memories have often been twisted or warped by the passage of time. It feels like this is a big deal, but is it? At this point there is no going back and actually observing the events and chronicling them correctly. So should we even have the argument about whether the observations are historically correct? The best we could hope to do is tear away at the mythos until we have the bear bones of what might have actually happened, and even then it might still be wrong.

Desjardin also points out the story of Joshua Chamberlin and the 20^th Maine, which has been canonized by the book Killer Angle and its subsequent movie adaptation Gettysburg. Desjardin uses this legend as a sort of catalyst for showing the reader tales that probably never happened. He even names one of the chapters after inquiries visitors to Gettysburg have about the location of Buster Kilrain’s grave. But Desjardin does not just point out the inconsistencies in the Chamberlin mythos, he points out that during Chamberlin’s life, he himself sought to spread the truth about his actions at Gettysburg. And while Chamberlin did give inaccurate figures about troop numbers, he did so honestly based on the information that he had. But then why does the story of Chamberlin have to be the legend? Is America so desperate for a Romantic figure on the side of the Union that we have to make one up? Is that not really how all heroes are formed, as an ordinary man who is then built up with less than reasonable facts until they attain a godlike status?

And finally in the grand scheme of things what does it matter? Mostly this is a question that I would like to pose to some of the units from back in the day. Desjardin writes on various units fighting to have their memorials placed in certain parts of the battle field. To me, and I am sure a lot of other people, the fighting over the minute details seemed so petty. I mean New York and Pennsylvania had an ongoing feud with each other over who did more in the Battle of Gettysburg and they started a spat over it. And then, the fact that the feud was prominent enough to be featured in a history book some 120+ years later is crazy. So that’s why I ask: What does it matter? I am not discounting the book, I would just love to hear some opinions on the matter.

I noticed only after going back through my ramblings that a lot of my questions pretty much boiled down to this. What is the point, does it really matter? I guess that must be the general feeling I have about this. But in everyway I ask the question, I always come up with a different answer myself, so other opinions would be awesome.

Free copies of Lincoln for Schools?

And right after I finished my last blog post, I came across something else. With all the hubbub around Lincoln, I thought it might still be relevant to post about this.

Apparently, ever single middle school and high school in the United States is set to receive a copy of the movie on DVD, along with a teaching guide to provoke student discussion and learning. We could argue until the cows came home about whether this is a good idea or not. I think that would lead back into the historical accuracy debates, so I will just direct you to my first blog post on that subject. Anyways, back on point. 

There was a quote that reminded me a bit about something I recently read in Andrew Ferguson's 

Land of Lincoln: Adventures in Abe's America. At one point, the author visits a seminar where the main ideas were teaching business management based on Lincoln's leadership skills. Never mind the fact that Lincoln was a terrible business man and failed multiple times at being one in his lifetime. Nevertheless, these people were able to take his leadership of a country and translate it into business success. The quote from the article reads as follows: "Each school will receive a DVD package compiled by Disney Educational Productions that includes a teacher's guide for spurring discussion among students and lesson plans relating to Abraham Lincoln's leadership and the significance of that period of U.S. history."

 It sounds eerily familiar to what was going on at the business seminars. Granted these seminars turned out to be fairly successful and thought provoking, but as someone who is only 3 years out of high school, I can wager a bet that the majority of High School students will not receive the same benefits as the seminar attendees. Most students, I can almost guarantee will see it as a free movie day and nothing more.I think its a noble attempt to try, but I just question how successful it'll be.

The article in question can be found here.

The Civil War and Baseball Cards

I think for this week I am a bit lucky. This week I found something that represents a bit of a cross roads for my interests. As I was purusing the interenet on my daily troll for information, I came across this

If you are too lazy to click on the link and read through all the information, the small amount that there is, I’ll summarize a bit for you. Man searches through attic, man finds baseball card, man discovers card is from the Civil War Era, man sells card for 92,000 dollars. Is this important? No, not really, but I found it neat. I absolutely love both baseball and history so to unearth something that is a cool little treasure trove of both is always fun!

On a side note, baseball season is right around the corner! Spring training has started, teams are reporting, and I can not wait for a chance to get to Salt River Field and take in a few Spring Training games!

Black History Month

After much dwelling, and not a whole lot of writing, I decided on my blog topic for the week. February, as many Americans know is Black history month. There is a legacy behind this designation that always causes Americans to question the necessity of such a thing. People always question why African Americans need a whole month dedicated strictly to their heritage. Isn’t that racism, or favoritism, or something? These are the people who question why we also don’t have a white history month, to which I respond that we have eleven of them.

So what does this have to do with the Civil War? In all honesty, it is not directly connected to the Civil War. In fact, Black history month is also celebrated in the UK and Canada in October, so its not even a strictly American celebration. But, in the grand scheme of things, the American Black history month would probably not exist with the conflict of the Civil War. We are able to trace the threads of uplifting and freedom back to the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13^th Amendment. And while I realize these threads go back even further, the catalyst for their growth is the actual Civil War.

Every February, the same questions make their rounds. What purpose does Black History month serve? Is it really fair to dedicate an entire month to one race? Etc, etc. The most prominent figure in these discussions is usually Morgan Freeman, as he has been quoted as saying that “black history is American history.” I tend to agree with this point. We don’t need to a whole month dedicated to this study. I know when I was in grade school, we would often spend the entire month in units about MLK and Malcolm X, but after that, there was usually not another black soul mentioned. This is a slight to not only African-American history and culture, but also to the school children. So I guess what I am saying is, we need to make a conscious effort to stop segregating our history. It isn’t black history, or white history, it is American History.

Vlogs and Civil War Memory

For this entry I chose to do a vlog. I am still very new to this, so please go easy on me! Thanks for watching.

Interpretations of Django Unchained

Continuing on with my last post, I felt that addressing another movie might be appropriate. This time, I think that we might take a look at Django Unchained, the latest in Quentin Tarantino hyperbole movies.

For those who are not aware, Django follows the tale of a freed slave, one Django (played by Jaime Fox) and a German bounty hunter, Dr. King Schulz (played by Christoph Waltz). The story follows these two characters around the pre- Civil War American South as Schulz trains Django in the ways of bounty hunting.  Of course, there is much more to be said about the plot of the movie, but I usually try not to spoil anything without a warning. That being said:

There, I think that takes care of that issue. I felt the need to place the spoiler warning because there are a few things about Django that I want to discuss that need reference from the film. The first thing that I wanted to mention is the proto- Ku Klux Klan scene that takes place about a 1/3rd of the way through the film. The scene is meant mostly as comic relief, as we see the proto-clansmen rallying together with white hoods on their heads. However, through the course of this scene, things start to break down as varying characters express disdain in how the hoods are made. Eventually the bickering and hollering leads the group to vote by committee to determine just how they are going to go about the lynching. The group eventually settles on riding without the masks, and thus they commence the attack. Predictably, the attack is unsuccessful and the riders are routed and humiliated.

This scene might not warrant mention. In fact, as I type this, I find myself questioning if perhaps even I am reading too much into the scene. I don't mean to suggest anything about Mr. Tarantino or his persuasion, but this scene appears in very bad taste. In my last post I said that I try not to pass judgement on the way popular culture portrays history, but in this case I find that it just was not possible for me to avoid. For one, the movie is already of sufficient length that this scene was not needed as filler. Also, this scene serves no purpose but to portray a bitter southern "gentlemen's" petty attempts at revenge. The film would have been just as good had this scene hit the cutting room floor.

Now that I have ranted and raved a bit I feel a bit better... But with that being said, there was one other thing that I wanted to address about the film, this time in a more positive light. This one requires a bit more of an abstract look at the film, so stick with me on this as it is just a theory of mine. In regards to the character that Leonardo DiCaprio plays, I have a bit of a pet theory. DiCaprio's character is supposed to be the representation of a Southern Gentleman during the 19th century. Sure he is a bit eccentric, but that is perhaps to be expected. However, as the movie progress, hist character gets more and more over the top, culminating in his death as a result of a small dispute of honor. For the most part I enjoyed his character, but I couldn't help but wonder about it. As I thought about it, I pondered whether his character was more of a caricature of a Southern gentleman. You have to take into account who the protagonists of the film are: a German and a freed slave. Both of these men have their own unique cultures and ideas, and thus a different lens through which they see things. This means that what the viewer is getting is not the actual representation of a Southern plantation owner, rather just what either Django or Schulz is seeing of him. I don't know, just a theory of mine. I tend to find in regards to the Civil War, American's tend to only remember what they want to and see what they want to. So I thought perhaps maybe seeing the era through the eyes of an outsider might give it a different perspective. Just my two cents.

Popular Culture and The Civil War

I know the title sounds a bit crazy. Just how can the Civil War be related to popular culture in anyway? Well just stop and think about it. Movies, books, TV Shows, and many other forms of entertainment often draw directly from the Civil War. The most recent, and probably most visible example of this would be Steven Spielberg's Lincoln.

Lincoln is a highly visible and critically acclaimed movie about the last 3 months of Abraham Lincoln's time as President of the United States. I'm trying not to spoil anything, but if you know anything about American History then you probably have a good idea of how the story goes... And unfortunately ends. I saw the film with my girlfriend and a friend of hers, both of whom have little to no interest in history. That being said they still enjoyed the film, probably as much as I did, if for different reasons.

Anyways, the point of this post was mostly to direct attention to an article that was published on cnn.com about a week ago. I've included a link here.


The article points to some historical inaccuracies in the film, which is all fine and dandy in its own right.  Historians love to argue about whether a movie is accurate and they bicker when things are wrong. On some levels its ok for historians to complain and argue about this. They want the public to be educated AND have correct information. After all, it seems that a large amount of people only get their historical knowledge from media in some way (whether thats Ken Burns or South Park isn't up to me!). However, their is also the argument that the purpose of popular media is not to be historically accurate, rather it is to entertain the consumer, something that a movie like Lincoln certainly achieved.

I don't want to pass an opinion on this one way or another, I just thought it was something worthy of conversation. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, who am I to get in the way of that?

Introduction

Hello all! If you are reading this then you have successfully found your way to my brand new blog. It is kind of exciting when I stop to think about it. I have very little experience with actually blogging, but everyone has to start somewhere right? I guess that would make the a private when it comes to blogging so bare with me here.

A little bit about myself might be appropriate to throw in here as well. My name is Connor Hillmann, I am a senior studying History with a focus in 19th century American History at Arizona State University. That probably explains the focus of this blog a bit. I hope to turn this degree into a PhD and continue on in the academic world as a professor. Beyond that I enjoy sports, video games, reading, and spending time with friends. Besides the whole history thing I sound like a pretty typical college student (minus the booze I guess).

Anyways as far as content goes, this blog will be mostly dedicated to the American Civil War, how we remember it today, and how it has been perceived throughout history. It sounds boring right? Well not really, if you sit down and look at just how the Civil War affected the United States you can find a pantheon of things that still linger around the country. History is inescapable. I hope to be able to find things that are relevant to modern day, but also historical lenses of the Civil War. Beyond the history stuff, I will probably included some sports stuff, since baseball is my second passion and I bleed Sedona Red for my Diamondbacks. Also, I might produce some vlogs on Youtube that I will then link to here. Hopefully the vlogs will be able to stimulate some interesting thoughts and discussions.


Beyond that, I hope you enjoy your time on my blog and I promise lots of content is coming soon!