The last point Billy gives to Johnny is one that lingered with me for a while. "I've been trying to coax you out, before the people behind me drag you out." I know a lot of people who will die on the hill of states' rights. And I've tried talking to them, but they concede on nothing, and the few who remain will die, alone on that hill.
no man will denie it was the state's rights to own slaves that were being contested but also in a major overview of things the south knew it would never have an equal voice or representation in congress ( looks at Missouri compromise)
Be careful mixing up state level rights with the institution of slavery. Slavery needed to go, but state level laws are highly important in the balance of the US political system.
I think Atun has a deep personal beef with films that sanitize war in general, not just because of the lost cause. He's of the opinion that all war movies should seek to show the true brutality or war and I'm with him on that. Movies that sanitize violence that aren't meant to be absurdist fantasy kinda rub the wrong way when you realize that true horror that warfare really entails.
I would agree - that was the idea that I got from most of his takes too. I wonder what the man would think of the film 'Come and See', I have never seen a more unsettling depiction of the horrors of warfare.
Eh. It really depends on where you draw the line at sanitizing war. Does every movie about modern war which doesn't show blood and guts and torn limbs sanitize it? In that case, "1917" would fall in that category, since we have ONE onscreen death through stabbing. In spite of that, I thought it did a great job of conveying the anxiety and despair of the trenches of the Western Front. There's also the practical issue of censorship and movie ratings in the US. War movies, especially overly gory ones, are more likely to get slapped with a more adult rating and that in turn can turn off people. Sometimes, sanitizing the violence is a choice to increase a potential audience. Not always a good one, and not always handled well, but there are reasons beyond glorifying war.
I have a degree in intelligence studies focusing on operations and planning. One of my classes was talking about insurgency and the teacher opened it by talking about one of the most successful ones in his opinion: the reconstruction era. We were all surprised as most of us didn't know about it.
@@VloggingThroughHistory if you haven’t read it, State of Rebellion by Dr. Richard Zuczek is a wonderful book regarding the Reconstruction era violence and insurgency in South Carolina.
did he mean as a counter insurgency or as a successful insurgency? both can be claimed as physical the fedreal goverment shut down the Klan but politically the insurgents got what they wanted
This community is a shining example of why rhetoric is important when talking about topics we disagree on. Not attacking us and dissenters is a good way to lead and we respect you for that!
I do understand that we need to be respectful about disagreement, but what can you do when the people dont care to listen to evidence? how much can you respect people who are unwilling to change their minds no matter how much evidence to the countrary you show, and that is the problem that I have with that statement, while I do agree that we need to be respectful, once people just start going on about feelings and preconceived notions no matter the facts and evidence then it is impossible to not make fun of them, and at some point, stubborn fools who cant change their minds no matter what cannot be approached in a reasonal and logical manner, so all is left is satire and ridicule IMO.
Perhaps but on some things such as the causes of the civil war or upholding the racist lost cause lie there is no self respecting black person who can have respect for someone who would defend those. Too much has been done to our people in the name of upholding that. Too much death, injustice and suffering. There are some views that deserve no respect. Antisemitism , anti Blackness, etc among them. There is no truth to anything the south fought for. Not any that any Black person who can look themself in the face can state. You will find some uncle tom who can perhaps.
@@vanessamaldonado5877 agreed 100%. In my experience, the people whining about respectful discourse are the sort of people who, deep down, know they’re trying to defend the indefensible, realise their arguments haven’t worked and want to gloss over the whole debate with “agree to disagree”. They want to hold onto their beliefs at all costs.
I love how utterly confused Chris was at the end XD I have to give Atun Shei a lot of credit, he puts al ot of heart and humor into his videos but he also has a lot of understanding of history and sources his facts. I think he can be crude but he is right in the fact that a lot of people don't learn history because they see study of history as "boring" And when people consider looking into history as boring, anyone can convince people of anything if they make it interesting enough. I think a lot of checkmate lincolnites approach is to try and combat that. "Your brave ancestor farmer heorically fought off a tyrant who tried to burn down his home and destroy the small state government to impose a facist empire and was stopped due to overwhelming evil powers!" sure tells a hell of a lot more interesting story than "Your ancestor was probably just some racist Joe who fought to perserve slavery and was out manevoured by a better general who was also probably racist and then everyone suffered and died." Which isn't even really a story.
@@seventeenseventysix5589 There's a large gap between celebrating what good traits your ancestors or forefathers had despite their flaws or bad traits and ignoring, obfuscating, white washing, or outright lying about their flaws and actual history.
The one thing that he loves is Horror mixed with history. Ravenous is his favorite film by far. ANd like others have said, the fact he made this in his living room is extremely impressive. He can be overly blunt at times, but his heart is in the right place and you can tell how much he loves the history of the Civil War.
I love the end sequence where he demonstrates the lengths to which a diehard would prefer to go to avoid acknowledging the points he is trying to lead them to. Rather to engage in an absurd plot to resurrect like minds from the dead than to admit defeat.
Klaus the N@zi isn't Johnny Reb. They're separate characters. Klaus is also involved in a separate plotline in Atun-Shei Films' other series, "Frozen '50s Man". His plotline in this story has been ongoing since... Episode 3 or 4, I think. The Sword of Baron Samedi came into play last episode in an end scene.
@@samrevlej9331 I'm postulating here, but I think the concluding one will be Johnny seeing himself in the No-No man, and be forced to either side with him, or with Billy.
Lyon Gardiner Tyler, son of U.S. president John Tyler (1841-1845), was a historian and genealogist well known for his defense of southern causes. His presidency of the College of William and Mary ranks as a watershed in the school's history. I was curious, so I googled his name...The amount of knowledge you have blows my mind. I dabble some into history, but you've really made it come alive for me. As old as I am, I'm half-tempted to go back to school for a history degree. LOL
FYI if you didn't know, the ending is a teaser for Shei's other ongoing series "Frozen 50s man" that is basically just a giant satire of the modern age that makes fun of everybody. I recommend giving it a watch as it has some pretty high production value for a UA-cam channel.
Something gives me the feeling that given Shei's political leanings, I think there is a certain sect of people he's specifically going to target in terms of satire, not "everybody".
@@kevincola3184 Yeah but how many content creators on UA-cam are open about their conservative values? Excluding people who specifically do content on history or politics in general?
Another amazing video with these two containing just an absolute wealth of knowledge. The sheer amount of learned history I've gotten from these videos is staggering.
I think his broader point about the Lost Causers and their current political activities is to draw a throughline from the original Lost Causers to the ones today. Saying that they haven't really changed tactics.
The argument he makes however that the lost causers of the post civil war era are the same group today advocating for free speech and railing against cancel culture is just silly.
@@Joe_Momma205 if you actually listen to their arguments, they do make sense though, talking about tactics and ideological throughlines. Like, if you were going to call one party in 1860 "conservative" would you put that label on the Democrats or the Republicans? Then ask that question again about today
Chris is, by far, the best UA-camr when it comes to historical analysis and explanation. Clearly states his known bias before going onto the topic but doesn't just take one side because that what he agrees. He does historical analysis how it's supposed to be done, by acknowledging both sides. Bravo!!!
The point about Mountain Dew Zero is a good one and well made. I would say the caveat that comes with it however is that sometimes the adoption of seemingly innocuous opinions, phrases, or symbols become 'Dogwhistles'. Sometimes a can of Mountain Dew is just that, but when it gets used consistently by one group with distasteful ideas as a "wink and nudge" way of signalling those ideas or identifying each other and bringing those ideas, however softly, into the public sphere, I think then we have to eye it more critically.
And I would counter by saying that many times opponents also accuse people of "dogwhistles" when there really aren't any. If people are bigots, they don't generally try to hide it.
@@VloggingThroughHistory I think this is one of those things that depends on the person and the setting. Online, with relative anonymity, people can be vocal about their views about (insert group here) to a degree they wouldn’t be in person. Of course some people have no problem expressing their views loudly in public, especially around a like-minded crowd. But I don’t know if I would say that’s generally the case. Sometimes you can be influenced by certain perspectives you grew up around without necessarily recognizing that’s bigotry, through no fault of your own. It’s these more subtle things that are the hardest to recognize in ourselves or others. And as far as public figures go, Lee Atwater arguably laid the groundwork for how you express certain views with a shield of plausible deniability. That tactic has been used by some people/groups to try and spread what they believe in a more publicly acceptable manner, to mainstream their views, which is flat out designed to be difficult to call out. But that’s getting into a bit of a different conversation, beyond the scope of this. I agree we shouldn’t rush to assume the worst in people when their intent/view is unclear and we should try to meet people where they are. But I also fully admit that as a black American that suspicion is going to be in the back of my head when people start talking about certain subjects, though I try to remain as objective as I can be and hear them out. I fully admit I have some conflicting perspectives here. But I try to talk to people, even when it’s clear we have very different ideologies.
@@VloggingThroughHistory I do completely understand your point, benefit of the doubt is important in individual cases. However dog whistles are normally present before hand, people randomly bringing up George Soaros (I probably misspelled his last name) is a fairly well known anti-semitic dogwistle so when people blame him for things its code for "Jews" broadly. Lots of people who say it probably don't realize it's anti-semitic, it's not that everyone who says his name is secretly a nazi. Its about getting people who aren't aware nudged down the path of accepting those opinions.
Agreed. You can see how after Charlottesville 2017 the far right anti-semites and fascists had to lay low and rebrand themselves strategically, because it was a massive blow to their credibility.
@@LovedandTheLover Actually, it is not a dogwhistle. Soros is a left-wing billionaire that is most known for his non-profits that fund political campaigns for progressives and other left-wing causes throughout the world. He pours a lot of money into politics worldwide. In defending him, most media call all critiques of him "anti-semitism", despite the critiques are of his views, not his Jewish ancestry (not religion, as he is an athiest). Beware of conflation in rhetoric.
As a European I have travelled to Germany on many occasions. In my time there I have yet to see a statue to any politician or general during the period 1933-1945, it's as though those years don't exist. Oh wait, we don't get our history from statues and monuments! Another thing about the Germans, you don't see people flying flags of the regime from 1933-1945, no one there says that the flag "represents heritage, not hate." The South was "Reconstructed"? Who knew?
Excellent point, it's maddening seeing people defend statues of men who took up armed rebellion against the United States to preserve an evil institution like slavery.
I mean, not a bad concept, but...is there even a sufficient Number of genuine 'Wilsonites'? Like, at most, I have seen some people say: "Well, he had a point here or there, but he was overall still a bad President."
I attended Quartermaster Officer's Advanced Course in Ft Lee, VA. One of our sessions was a presentation by the post historian. He related a story where he was given a tour of the local area by a university history professor. During the tour the professor took him around Richmond to see various civil war monuments. The tour ended abruptly when the post historian noted it was an impressive display for the losers of the war. The professor kicked the historian out of his car and the historian had to find his own way back to Ft Lee.
I love this UA-cam channel so much! I’m able to here apposing political view points in an organized and understandable way while also being sure of its historical accuracy. Talking about VTG by the way
Glad your feeling better now. Thank you for your civil war and world war content, you have taught this English guy so much about the U.S. civil war, something we are not taught in schools.
In fairness we’re barely taught about British history in schools. I was at school between 1995-2007 and in that time we did Romans, Tudors, Battle of Hastings, some Victorian stuff, WW1 and a bit of the Great Depression from a British perspective. Much of our GCSE’s were Cold War and American history.
Learned a lot on this channel. Thank you! And thank you for deflecting for Shelly Foote. I don't know who could have done a better job telling the Confederate perspectives.
And what exactly says that quote? if you want to put it really broad: EVERYTHING we belive because its a version we agree upon. That in itself says nothing. If you want to to be more specific then you have to say: which history, which version, which scource, which conclusion etc?
Hey, Chris. I have seen the first half of Gone with the Wind. It is more about a slow palce romance but the lost cause bs, which was the reason why I wanted to watch and mock Space Myatery Theatre 3000 style. It does have scenes of planters becoming impoverished and depicted slavery as "normal" but just bits and peaces spread throughout this 3+ hour romance. I have no idea why people were into it, from a strict screenwriting pov.
I don't get the lost cause connection either. Slavery was pretty tangential to the plot of the film and it is told from s certain perspective. It would be like complaining a movie about Cleopatra doesn't focus enough on how terrible slavery was. That the period is romanticized in the movie should be no surprised, romance is the genre.
@@3halfshadows I know it does not address that much but it was enough for the "mami" actress to get an Oscar. The rarely shows Lost Cause stuff, I wanted to mock it Sapce Mystery Theatre 3000 style, but a romance story that is puts James Cameron's Titanic to shame, in terms of being slow paced.
It's been forever since I saw Gone With the wind but wasn't the Rhett Butler character mostly disdainful of the whole system in the South. Mostly because he was interested in making money off the war and really wasn't considered a gentleman by most people anyway so he wasn't that attached. He always seemed more interested in people instead of the institutions around him. North or South.
My one criticism here is you mention the “sanitized violence” in Glory. I am not sure which version of Glory you viewed but the version I saw was hardly sanitized. Heads were literally exploding and it was really bloody. Atun Shei mentions in his review of Gettysburg that he feels strongly that war films should be unrepentantly violent, that they shouldn’t try to dumb down the tragedy that they are, and he thinks Gettysburg suffered as a movie as a result. Gettysburg was far less violent than Glory.
If memory serves, "Gettysburg" was released as a TV miniseries. There were things you could do in a 90s theatrical movie that you could not get away with on broadcast TV. That being said, even if you are not showing much blood and gore, there is something horrific about squares of men charging into musket and cannon fire. I really do not find that criticism all that credible.
@@mjbull5156 I think in comparison to Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan or Blackhawk Down, they’re both rather sanitized. Something I noticed in movies is that if it is before 1914, the violence is always rather tame.
Not to mention the opening with men beating each other to death and violently drowning each other in the sucking mud. **EDIT** That was “Lincoln”. I’m dumb.
18:33 part of the thing with his style is that he himself is a former lost cause proponent. I believe the saying is something like " no is more zealous than the converted". For us who never adhered to the lost cause it's a different perspective from someone who looks back on their old self in sheer horror.
What I find amazing about Margaret Mitchell is she was ten years old before she even learnt the South had in fact lost the war in the same way most children learn Santa isn't real around that age.
Oh I wish I could go back in time to watch your stunned silence at the cartoonish resurrection section again. When I saw you were going to react to this piece I was waiting to see if you'd cut it out or not and man I was not disappointed.
You have a point on Gettysburg, because the movie was filmed on the standard of american warmovies were BEFORE Saving Private Ryan which was just at another level.
He’s also missing the very first Checkmate Lincolnites video and the one about Confederate soldiers fighting for slavery. I don’t think he is going to do those videos because he might not have much to add to those videos. Edit: VTH said in another comment that he HASN'T seen the Black Confederate video, so he might do a reaction to that in the future.
@@shawnmiller4781 They said "you've" first of all. Second of all, why not? These are good analyses and counterpoints from two people who clearly know a lot and have a lot to say about this specific aspect of history. Personally, I find them to be great listening material while I work. Atun-Shei's irreverent and dry humor combined with VTH's very grounded responses just works
I've always thought Atun-She's videos were really well done. I love the humor he brings to Checkmate Lincolnites! and I really appreciate the fact that he meticulously footnotes his videos so you know where he's getting his information from.
I agree. I very much like his style. And yeah, it's blunt sometimes. But then again, sometimes you need to get a bit of blunt force trauma to get the point. Also the over-generalisation VTH here points out. Valid critique. But that's always the problem with explaining broader context. There are always exceptions. The question would be - are there enough exceptions to the generalisation to invalidate it. As Atun himself said - a small flawed piece of commentary at the time as the Lost Cause myth collided with modern internet culture. Which pretty much says it all.
@@robertnett9793 I think generalizations are a valid criticism, but he acknowledges things like the fact that the southerners were fighting for more than one reason. But it's very clear from the timing of SC's secession and the fact that they didn't even wait for Lincoln to be inaugurated that it wasn't about states' rights. They saw the writing on the wall about slavery.
I live in Texas and also majored in history in college. And it was same, mostly due to lack of time. By the time we got to Reconstruction, it was close to the end of the semester/school year, so it became a matter of "how much more should [the teacher] give out before final exams?" The cut off between the two halves of US History (at least in college) was 1877.
One of the problems with history is that we tend to punctuate history with the end of the wars, then start the next paragraph with the beginning of the next war, leaving out the in-between times.
@@ericbsmith42 Very true, imo, when it comes to ww1 and ww2. Those 20-21 years between are instrumental to understanding the causes, ideas etc. A lot of parallells between the South’s defeat and Germany’s defeat in ww1 and how it shaped rhetoric and ideas, except Germany of course took a WHOLE different turn.
First time watching your reactions big fan! Yet, I do believe the difference in how certain periods in US History are taught depends on what state and even what district is in charge of the curriculum and textbooks. Due to my parent's jobs, we have to move frequently I distinctly remember changes in the way certain periods were taught in different states like Texas and Minnesota. So, I believe the lack of proper learning and the washing perspective have influenced the little effort we put into this part of history. Keep up with the great content!
There's also the point that many of those were errected in, or near black communities or gathering places. You know 'to show 'em where their place is.'
My biggest issue is the extralegality of a lot of these takedowns. If communities vote to legally remove these statues, that's their decision. If the statues were made with a specific historical occurrence in mind and aren't part of the lost-cause narrative, then they should go to a museum or such, otherwise they can melt them down for all I care. But the issue is when mobs of protesters go around tearing down statues of the past, *even abolitionists and union heroes* , with no one trying to stop them? That's when we have a serious problem.
I used to have a manager who got his history degree from Texas Tech. He knew two things about U.S. Grant: 1) He was a drunk, and 2) He only won because of superior numbers. He was TAUGHT that by history professors.
My understanding of the caricature of the "modern republican" is that he is being used, manipulated and spent by people who have far worse ideas than he does. He states he is uncomfortable, this is too far for him and his beliefs, and for falling to Klaus he is killed. I believe many people who follow the lost cause or other ideologies like it do so in good faith, to solely the benefit of far worse people.
Hey VTH. I've been a fan of both you and Mr. Beat for a very long time now, and I think you guys' friendship is awesome, especially since you disagree on a number of things. It's well known at this point that the two of you disagree on the electoral college. Could you maybe make a video about the electoral college, perhaps reacting to Mr. Beat's video about why he doesn't like it? Much love from California ❤️
@@VloggingThroughHistory I second the motion. Personally, I'm not an American citizen or even a resident anymore, but I did live here in some of the most formative years of my life, and as it is still the most powerful country in the world, I keep an interest in its politics and history. So, as a foreigner who has lived through US presidential elections (with my own qualms about my own country's electoral system), I would agree with Mr Beat's point. I also disagree politically with you on a number of issues, but I appreciate your efforts to listen to the other side and your dedication to history on multiple topics. It would be very interesting to listen to your counterpoints and what that says about how you view politics.
@@VloggingThroughHistory It'll be interesting to see your thoughts. I've long thought that the best argument for the Electoral College was a purely practical one at the time in the late 18th century: tallying votes from a national popular vote election would be a total nightmare with the transportation and communication infrastructure that existed in the 1790s or even the 1830s (imagine preparing to inaugurate someone when a few more towns come in to tilt the balance the other way) and it's not really until the railroad and telegraph era that a popular vote election model would even be remotely feasible. Madison and co could not see that same day communication across a continent would be invented and the very idea of that would've been extremely outlandish. That said, there's no reason to preserve it now. I do think that it's worth noting that just about every country in Latin America is a Presidential Republic of some sort and all of them are either one round popular vote elections (eg Mexico) or are two round top two runoff elections (eg Brazil or Peru). France is also a Presidential Republic and it does two round top two runoffs. No other modern nation with a Presidential system does an electoral college. Two round top two runoffs may be suspenseful but they also deal with the problem of a candidate winning by a small plurality in a three way race, like Calderon becoming President of Mexico in 2006 with only 37% of the vote. I think a two round top two runoff is probably the best way to go with American Presidential elections: less difficult to understand than instant runoff voting and if a candidate gets over 50% dispense with the second round and just have a winner, but it eliminates spoiler effects in races with a strong third party presence.
@@pattersong6637 My suggestion would be if keeping the Electoral College, make it proportional instead of "winner-takes-all". The current system makes it so Republican voters in blue states and Democratic voters in red states are ignored.
I really like Shelby Foote, he's a magnificent storyteller and I think his focus on the human side of the civil war is what made the Ken Burns documentary so incredible. He get's a bad rap for being a lost cause figure with some good reason (In his Ken Burns interview he talks about the lost cause but that was cut) but I think he is pretty down to earth about all the people that are deified by most in the south. For example, he viewed Stonewall Jackson as a pretty good general and a tough person but also as an eerie, sadistic zealot who did some pretty crazy stuff on the battlefield. He viewed Robert E Lee as the best general in the South and an honorable man but also the guy who ordered Pickett's Charge because he got cocky and threw away thousands of his own men. Foote had similar nuance about Lincoln, Forrest, Davis, Grant ect. He is also great at telling stories that describe the attitudes of the average people, like when he talks about guys throwing apples at each other while waiting for the order to attack at Gettysburg (Run old Hare!), when he talks about that union guard who talked to an owl that one time, what soldiers ate (Sloosh for the South, and bulletproof biscuits for the north) and that photo of the confederate prisoners at Gettysburg. I think Atun-Shei (as much of a fan I am of his) doesn't give the Ken Burns documentary enough credit here by saying they over relied on Shelby Foote. I think his nuance about the big players and also his stories from the average soldiers bring that documentary so much humanity that would be missing otherwise and that couldn't be further from the myth of these people that the lost cause perpetuates.
@@firingallcylinders2949 But... "we had no chance!" also is part of the Lost Cause ideology... Basically: "We had no chance, the North fought with one armed tied to its back and always could just bring the other out! Isn't it a sign of how valiant our soldiers were that they still put up such a great fight?" Which, of course makes it rather shizophrenic when, the next mooment, the next point is "We would''ve won, if..."
@@undertakernumberone1 I see the opposite. Every lost causer I ever see says the Confederacy could've won if: and then they usually list the British helping, or if Stonewall hadn't died, or Ewell had taken the hill beyond Gettysburg, or if they had more industry etc. Foote never listed all these reasons the South could've won with he always just said yea no shot, it was always doomed.
@@firingallcylinders2949 and I've seen both used, depending on what's more expedient. Like the apologists who created the “stabbed-in-the-back” myth to explain Germany’s defeat in World War I, Lost Cause spokesmen sought to rationalize the Southern military loss. This presented a confusing and sometimes contradictory set of assertions, the first of which simply manipulated semantics: the Confederates had not really been defeated, they had instead been overwhelmed by massive Northern manpower and materiel. This was presented with a suggestion that the North’s superior resources constituted Yankee trickery and unfairness. Furthermore, the South’s loss was said to be inevitable from the beginning; the fact of loss was somehow mitigated in the myth because it was said that winning had been impossible. If the Confederacy could not have won, it somehow did not lose. On the other hand, the myth asserted that had the South won at Gettysburg, it would have won the war. The loss at Gettysburg was attributed to Lt. Gen. James Longstreet. The “Longstreet-lost-it-at-Gettysburg”21 thesis was presented in this way by Rev. J. William Jones, secretary of the Southern Historical Society. He wrote that “the South would have won at Gettysburg, and Independence, but for the failure of one man” (emphasis in original).22 Gallagher, Gary W.. The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History (S.17). Indiana University Press. Kindle-Version.
Gettysburg had sanitised violence - because it was originally a tv series, the movie only had limited theatrical release, and that's how I was it in London.
That was a very entertaining ending, to say the least. Also, thanks for everything you do. I do thoroughly enjoy watching your reaction videos. Whether you agree or disagree, you keep a level head and debate/analyze with respect and decency. That's fun to watch in my book.
He makes a good point about how the history isn’t always written by the victors. Another video that talks about this is the videos by Potential History “History is not written by the victors” and “Germany, the Cold War, and a persuasive narrative”
History and how it is taught different over time or from different perspectives or when ideology plays a role is interesting to observe. In what is equivalent to high school I had a history teacher who got his hands on some books from both sides of the iron curtain (from the two Germanies). And every now and the we compared the topic we studied between the three versions: Our current history book West German cold war book East German cold war book Even for topics where one would think they are quite removed from ideological views or far enough back for a common consensus we found quite striking differences. In particular when potential motivations of people in history were discussed.
13:19 i mean the man referred to "come and see" as "what every war movie should be", i *really* don't think he's gonna go to the mat in defense of "glory" that hard
Regarding the comment at 3:50 - You’re right in principle, but I think you’re missing the point. He’s not saying, “Complaining about cancel culture is bad because Lost Causers are bad,” nor even, “Lost Causers are bad because complaining about cancel culture is bad.” He’s saying, “Lost Causers are cynically using concerns about cancel culture to paint themselves as victims and garner sympathy from people who think cancel culture is a problem.” Sure, he might be alluding to a common pattern of behavior of people with hateful ideologies defending their views by whining about cancel culture. But that’s not so much guilt by association as just a shorthand to describe the rhetoric they use today.
Having a community like this to have open and respectful conversations is a wonderful thing. In today's time, it is far to easy to lose sight that you can disagree with someone and still have a fruitful discussion about the matter and remain respectful to each other. In regards to the issue of monuments/statues, I would prefer that they either remain in place or be moved to museums when they can be studied and used in an educational way. When pieces of history - no matter how distasteful they may be by today's standards - are destroyed, it only serves to remove the discussion surrounding them. Acting as though something didn't happen is not a solution; it only serves to drive people apart. The Confederate statue in my town is a memorial to the ones who lost their lives and I honor their memory. Members of my family died in that war protecting their homes and their way of life. Most of whom were far too poor to have owned slaves. Yes, the war was about slavery. But, that does not mean that every southern soldier was an evil person in the same way that not every German soldier in the 30-40's was an evil person. As a person who has lived my entire life in north Mississippi, I can still clearly see the scars left on society from the war. In my opinion, it is still the main cause of why the South lags behind the rest of the nation in terms of economy, infrastructure, and education even to this very day. It's not that hard to understand why so many people -mostly the older generation at this point - still feel that pain and that feeling of isolation and betrayal due to some of the things that happened both during the war and during Reconstruction. Thank you again for always making such great videos and giving such poignant commentary always. And thanks again to the rest of the community here for having the ability to have frank yet respectful conversations. Always remember, no matter where you stand in your opinions, we all have far more in common than we will ever have in differences.
I'm a fellow Mississippian. I think it's been said many times by both Attun Shei and by Vlogging that personal reasons for going to war were diverse, protecting the home, boredom, peer pressure, escaping the responsibilities of home and hearth, and yes protecting slavery. But the reason for a war is what the institutions of government say it is, and our state, Mississippi, was very clear that their, our, reason for secession was to preserve the institution of slavery. If you haven't you should take a trip to Jackson to see the Civil Rights Museum. It's amazing and a revelation. It covers some of the post reconstruction period that he refers to. Definitely worth the trip. Be prepared to be challenged.
@@msspi764 I agree. I didn't mean to imply that Atun-Shei or VtH have said otherwise. Our state was at the forefront of the protection of the institution of slavery. It's a fault that will stain us forever. It's still rare to ever see a positive story in the national media about either Mississippi or Alabama. There is no defending that. I believe VtH even said in part 1 of this that people fought for all reasons. I was speaking mainly in regards to the entire discussion overall and highlighting how great this community is for that very fact. It wasn't meant to be an accusation against anyone here.
"In my opinion, it is still the main cause of why the South lags behind the rest of the nation in terms of economy, infrastructure, and education even to this very day." That statement isn't entirely accurate in the year 2022. Was it accurate in 1970? Maybe. But 2022, no. Manufacturing and infrastructure have been very rapidly developing in the South over the last ten years, and the northeast is starting to stagnate. Many manufacturing industries from metallurgy to vehicles and even weapons industries have moved to the south because of less regulation and more business-friendly state level laws. The US has become far more industrially distributed, and you will find developed and undeveloped areas in many parts of the US, including the north. In fact, the migration of the middle class, young professionals, and the wealthy out of the Northeast is becoming noticeable. You can go to some parts of rural PA or NJ and you will find some very sad spots. In terms of evidence, check the moving industry data, property tax regulations, and the actual transfers of corporate headquarters. It might be hard to tell, but the economic and business ties are shifting. In 100 years, it is a strong possibility that the south will easily pass and out-lap the northeast completely... in some ways it has already happened.
@@willd7596 I think this is a reasonable observation, though there are other influences as well. Proximity to resources needed in manufacturing was a big issue in the 19th century. Not so much cotton, but iron ore, steel, coal all meant that the industries needed to be close to the resources, Pittsburgh and Bethlehem PA and Birmingham are classic examples. The transportation revolution of the time, canals, early railroads, ships, made New Orleans, Baltimore, New York, and Boston centers of industry. That changed in the mid 20th century with another more impactful transportation revolution. That opens the doors to developing industries away from the transportation hubs. Not completely, there are corridors along interstates just as there were corridors along rail lines in the 19th century. Vicksburg became a target because it was a hub with the Mississippi River and a rail line that was east-west on both sides of the river and connected by a ferry. The railroad bypassed Natchez, so the US and Confederate armies largely ignored it leaving an unparalleled collection of mansions and historic buildings untouched. Another reason for the southern efforts to attract industry, at least in my state, is the extensive poverty and poor educational systems that produce people who need jobs. That's changing for two reasons, The post Covid situation has resulted in close to full employment. It has also created opportunities for people to work remotely. An effort now underway to provide high speed connectivity to much more of my state will do more to combat poverty than the huge tax breaks and support for brick and mortar industrial centers. So I agree with you about the economic development of the South, but not for some of the reasons you state.
THANK YOU for that Mountain Dew Zero analogy! 1. I too like it and 2. The point you were making is what I've been trying to get across to a certain element of my friends/family (in vain I might add).
Should probably let you know, that chick-fil-a shirt and maga hat combo is an actual outfit i've seen multiple times in person, you just have to live in the right communities to see it regularly. I assure you that was probably not a caricature given that atun lives in New Orleans.
I've only seen a couple of the films mentioned I think the issue is that they leave you with the feeling that the South was somehow a wistful and almost chivalric society which were almost forced to defend themselves and their idyllic rural way of life. Everyone even the opposing forces were so polite and almost apologetic about the whole thing and I guess that impression stays more after watching them rather than the racial and economic issues.
Yeah, they clearly whitewashed all the times when people in both the USA and CSA called for the raping, pillaging, and destruction of the other. The fact was both sides hated each other, and it was only due to individuals who wanted reconcilliation like Lincoln and Grant (or outright Southern sympathizers like Johnson), that the South wasn't punished even more after Appamattox.
Well, as growing up in the rural South, do I know what Aten/Andy is angry with? Hell, yea. To this day. The Lost Cause is a real thing to this day around here. Andy chooses to make his home in New Orleans, Chris chooses to make his in Ohio. That’s not meant as a criticism of VLOG’s reaction. Just something to think about in context. Now, the obvious disdain VLOG had for the final scene is unwarranted? I don’t think. The historian and artist in Aten seems to me to have been overlapped. And yeah, it was a little over the top. Believe me, I get it. But…VLOG didn’t grow up here, I did and Checkmate Lincolnites has chosen to make his home here. So, he ain’t crazy with that tomb scene. Anyway, I’m a fan of both creators. If VLOG got annoyed with the final scene. So, as someone that grew up and was indoctrinated and had the big lie grilled into one’s head, I perhaps something to think on. And I agree, the final scene was over the top! But the message and that it should be thought about. (I even rolled my eyes at the SS uniform, but I knew what he was going for), so I get VLOG’s deadpan. Anyway, I had a great Thanksgiving and hope the two creators and everyone reading this had the same. Cowboys won!
Truth to be said, I'm sorta agree about that last scene being... ooooph, but not because it's distasteful or over the top. I really think it's downplays the message of last speech made in actual dialogue video.
I took AP US history from 2010 to 2011 and we definitely spent a lot of time on reconstruction, I know for a fact that my teacher didn't cover it very much in his regular classes though
I was in normal US History in 2015 (non AP) and I hardly remember talking about reconstruction at all. To be fair I wasn't exactly the best student in the world, but I feel like I would remember learning about something so culturally significant, such as reconstruction.
@@nathansimpson5721 you may not honestly. I distinctly remember it being the most tedious and annoying segment of the entire class. Idk if it just doesn't fit well with classroom settings or if it's just a result of me maturing but I find it MUCH more interesting now even though I was a history buff even back then
@@MarvinCZ normally I'd say yes, but that would mean this teacher managed to make literally every other aspect of US history absolutely enthralling. Maybe he hated studying that specific time period
I say Atun-Shei is right about Ken Burns. Let me put it this way: at one point "The Civil War", Burns is detailing the differences between the Confederate and Union Constitutions, and he mentions that the Confederate one gives the president the line-item veto. You know what he doesn't mention? All the parts that were added to enshrine slavery forever. Honestly, it's funny all the things Ken Burns missed in his research, like those Declarations of Causes of Secession. Burns managed to find a recording of an actual Southern veteran doing a rebel yell - something Shelby Foote mentioned he'd never heard - yet Burns apparently never found the Declarations. Because if he had and simply refused to mention them, that'd make him a pretty untrustworthy historical presenter.
You two are definitely my favorite Civil War centric youtube channels and I fall somewhere in between. It also being a big focus of my own time and study. I genuinely feel that most (not all) of your issues with him and his presentation around him overly focusing on Lost Cause etc is just that this is the entire point and topic of these videos and less to do with him specifically. If you haven't watched it I highly recommend watching the interview between him and Mr. Beat where he even takes a good long moment expressing how he feels his videos might come across as overly demonizing Southern Confederate slave owners due to the nature of the focus of his video. That he genuinely thinks there's another side and he wants to represent that a bit more. It's just the nature of the videos. Kind of like someone who writes books on dismissing conspiracy theories doesn't mean that person doesn't believe in any. I think you'd find him less focuses on that overall despite these videos being themed on that topic. Also your point about our lack of focus on reconstruction history and it's importance might make the rest of the Nation complacent in some way feels like you coming full circle to his point you were challenging earlier. I think his point wasn't that the North and elsewhere were fully bought into Lost Cause mythos etc, but basically your point there. That they sacrificed history and the standing of African Americans to unite White America essentially. I'd love to see some sort of collab with you. Maybe an interview or just a back and forth where you can debate some of the differences and talk about much of what you agree with. Maybe a civilized back and forth debate on Gettysburg and Gods and Generals and see both of you argue your points on it being Lost Cause mythos or not.
God, I wish Andy would have him on for a livestream sometime soon. That would be something worth multiple bags of popcorn and a really wonderful glass of whiskey.
This is my first video of yours I’m commenting on. I’ve been a lurker but I really enjoy your videos. I learn so much! As far as Atun goes, he’s very well informed which is nice to see. I hate ‘informative’ videos that aren’t very, well, informative. He’s very creative and I like the presentation of Billy Yankee vs. Johnny Reb, and they make me laugh! One thing that gets me though about is his tendency (not on everything but it is a tendency) to lump a bunch of people into one group. Nobody is all black or all white. We are all shades of grey when it comes to politics, religion, etc. But in these last few years we’ve become incredibly divided, and the tendency to be divisive can spill over into our viewpoints of the world, past or present. I believe we all need to look at history through the glasses of that time in history. I try to do that and I feel bad when I don’t. And thank you Chris for reminding us to do that. I appreciate the reminders. Keep up the good work! And I can’t wait for more videos!
I didn't find that part good at all. It was self-righteous demagoguery. You don't help people by cursing them out. Outside of the Army, when would that ever help?
“If Northerners . . . had peaceably allowed the seceders to depart, the result might fairly have been quoted as illustrating the advantages of Democracy; but when Republicans put empire above liberty, and resorted to political oppression and war rather than suffer any abatement of national power, it was clear that nature at Washington was precisely the same as nature at St. Petersburg. . . . Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms.” ~ The Times of London 13 Sep 1862, Lost-Causin' it back before it was cool... on the heels of Second Manassas
I wouldn't call Glory "sanitized violence" it probably got its R rating for that union officers head exploding from a cannon ball during the Antietam battle scene alone.
I recall an article I read many years ago on the topic "how to be a better boyfriend" (or something along those lines). One of the points listed was "watch Gone With The Wind with her at least once. It doesn't hurt." Well, I did. And it hurt. And that was long before I learned this context.
It's not that I disagree with the information he presents. It's the biased manner in which it's presented. It's been pretty well documented that if you don't think all the southern soldiers and populace were anything but a bunch of blood thirsty murdering racist savages, you're wrong according to Atun-Shei. I'm not sure anyone has ever argued that there weren't southerners who were racist, and if so they're quickly dismissed. Of course there were, and continue to be, southerners who are racist. There are also, right this second, Californians and New Yorkers who are so racist they'd give Lee a run for his money. The war for the south was about preserving the institution of slavery. Ok, I agree. He's never changed my mind on that because it's something I already agreed with. However, the war for the north wasn't about destroying that institution, and he consistently skips cleanly over that. The bag of racist quotes from southern soldiers is accurate. Ok. Where is the bag of racist quotes from northern soldiers? The information is always presented from him as though it was only the south who was racist with slaves, and the northern soldiers were just heroes freeing black people from the inescapable bonds of slavery while welcoming these newly freed slaves with open arms. That's patently asinine, and provably and demonstrably false. Where are the quotes from northerners about not wanting freed slaves in the north either? Where are the quotes from northern civilians and soldiers that match nearly verbatim the sentiment presented by the southern soldiers and civilians? EDIT: IF we can agree that the south launched a campaign to change the reasons for the war, can't we also agree that the north did as well, and that both sides white washed the history for their own benefit? If the rationale for bringing things like this to light to the masses is education, shouldn't it be all inclusive?
In Lexington KY, an equestrian statue of John Hunt Morgan (a Lexingtonian) was placed in the very spot where the second largest slave market in the entire South had stood..... it was moved to Lexington cemetery near to where the Morgans were buried.....thank goodness.....
If there's one thing I'd really take issue with about his series, it's that Johnny Reb is basically a cartoon character but Billy Yank is just...him. I'd love Billy Yank to have a thick period-appropriate New York accent and have strong period appropriate opinions about draft dodging rich people, immigrant draft riots, or whether or not President Grant was to blame for half the Republican Party being on the take from the Union Pacific Railroad in the Credit Mobilier scandal and how their corruption directly led to the Democratic victory in the 1874 midterms that dramatically scaled back Grant's Reconstruction project (by the time Reconstruction officially ended in 1876 only two Southern states even still had troops in them). It just kind of annoys me that Johnny Reb is a clown and Billy Yank is the omniscient narrator: the show would be so much more fun if both of them were strawmen. It'd allow more issues to be tackled!
It is a show deliberately poised with debunking the Lost Cause myth. It is not a show trying to accurately show lived history or opinions or speech patterns of the people of the time. Hell Jonny's words are 80% modern shittakes of Lost Causes that Atun Shei finds, just with a little flair to the accent. Johnny Reb is a joke because modern Lost Causers are a joke
I actually met Lyon Gardiner Tyler's son, Harrison Ruffin Tyler, on a couple of occasions. He owns the site of Fort Pocahontas on the James River in Virginia, and my reenactment unit, the 1st MD US Infantry, participated in several reenactments there. Actually a really cool site - the earthwork fort is still mostly intact and it's on a bluff with beautiful views of the river. Mr. Tyler, who is actually President Tyler's grandson, would drive around on a golf cart and greet the reenactors on occasion.
I would say that the Lost Cause isn’t in Texas, but I don’t that it is, I was homeschooled growing up and both my parents were from the north so I never heard anything but it being about slavery. I was genuinely surprised to learn that was a view on history
@@willd7596 he specifically states that the myth is dying and that the holdouts are an increasingly insignificant voice. The thing is they still exist and tend to be quite vocal within thier own little echochambers.
I’m really glad that I found your channel at the beginning of year I like your reaction videos but I really like your videos on the us civil war because don’t get much over here in the uk You have a great way of making your videos more that cold facts you bring feeling to them. Ps what do you think the score will be Friday? Should be a good game
@@VloggingThroughHistory i would be happy with that score I’d like you to qualify out of the group to thought you were unlucky last night it looked like your players were getting tried towards the end.
Unfortunately I've often found that discussion with lost causers, especially on platforms like UA-cam and Quora is like Wack-a-mole whilst trying to navigate a maze as they try to move in different directions to get one up on you.
It's because for all their passion and obsession with Civil War History, they never once bother to actually do basic reading, let alone understand how scholarship, source critiquing and all that works. It'd literally be like trying to disprove Einstein's theories when your math is so bad you can't even calculate 1+1. It's why actual historians laugh at them and Gary Gallagher in all his politenes and restraint still had to call the Black Confederate movement "demented".
I've watched the Burns series many times and I think Shelby Foote was extremely fair and critical of the confederacy and I'm a born and raised Massachusetts man with zero ties to the south... honestly think he was far more objective and unbiased than Atun Shei
Using the cancel culture argument the way he did was calling into question whether there actually is a cancel culture to begin with. It's an easy argument to make actually. First, because a lot of the people, if not the most influential people, who complain about cancel culture are doing so from UA-cam channels with literally millions of subscribers, websites that have hundreds of thousands if not millions of subscriptions and the most watched cable news show in the United States. When someone making millions of $ a year talking is claiming they are simultaneously being cancelled it's easy to say cancel culture isn't a thing. Our friend here is clearly of the mind that people who are complaining about "cancel culture" are only complaining about being critiqued for their statements rather than simply being accepted under the auspices of "there are two sides to every argument" and that, sometimes, people walk with their wallets when they hear a critique and then in turn the free market works as intended.
I will grant u it is true that many people who complain about cancel culture do have large platforms. However in many cases they’re often speaking for those who don’t have large platforms. There are definitely examples out there of normal regular people getting “canceled” for something that may be relatively benign or at least the intent wasn’t to cause any issue. It may not be as large an issue as some would make it but that doesn’t mean it’s not a problem at all
@@stpackers the "regular" people getting cancelled though are people largely getting cancelled by their peer group. I know it sucks but that is how peer groups have always worked. I was once the VP of College Republicans at one of the nations largest Universities. I then evolved over time and while I didn't vote for a number of year I eventually supported Bernie (then Hillary when he lost) and then Bernie (then Biden when he lost). Do you think I might have been "cancelled" by my GOP/MAGA friends? I was literally raged at, cursed and shouted down, right before they unfriended me across all social media. This however is how it's always worked. Let me use an analogy. As a kid you are the geek having sleepovers so you can all wake up to watch Robotech on Saturday morning? If so you are likely getting "cancelled" at school by the "jocks" and popular crowd. The problem is the dynamic has switched. The Conservative position used to be the "jock"/"popular" position, politically, since Reagan (remember Reagan Democrats?) Now the more Liberal/Progressive position is the popular/majoritarian position. The people not being willing to accept that the dynamic has switched are using the term "cancelled" to cover up for the fact that their views are not only unpopular but in the minority. That's how social interactions work and have always worked, it's just that people find it more complicated to have a "public" and "private" persona thanks to social media where they might have a bad day and let their "private" persona into the "public" realm. Again though, it's not "cancel" culture, it's just your peers saying "really? Find another peer group." And that peer group is out there, just like it was in grade school and highschool
Two observations: Firstly, your argument assumes that those complaining about cancel culture are denouncing something that they personally experience, rather than something they observe in society at large. If it's the later, then their huge audiences could actually be taken as evidence that what they say is true, their message clearly resonates with a lot of people after all. Secondly, it also takes as a given that someone can't be both popular and 'cancelled' at the same time which I wouldn't take as obvious at all. Simply put, taking two groups of people x and y, I don't see why a controversial speaker couldn't be loved by x and loathed by y simultaneously.
@@pascalausensi9592 first if people denouncing "cancel culture" haven't experienced it themselves then they are denouncing something told to them by people obviously not cancelled because they have a large enough of a platform to get out a message. That is how we observe things in a society as large as ours. If it's not effecting us, or our peer group, directly we are seeing it in the media from a talking head that somehow is informing us of the cancellation, even if they are obviously not cancelled. Second the very definition of "cancel culture" is the idea that there is an ostracism in the social and professional circles of the individual. This is exactly why I used the analogy I did. I am Gen-X, I was that VP I spoke of in the late 80's and early 90's. I literally see a simple flip. I'll use an example a real life political example. In the early to mid 90's were there LGBTQ+ advocates who were protesting for their Rights and AIDs research complaining about "cancel culture"? Nope they knew they were the minority but protested anyway knowing their position was a minoritarian one. Now the dynamic has switched. Those against LGBTQ+ Rights and the like are in the minority but when they are called out on it they say "cancel culture." In short, from my arm chair, "cancel culture" seems to be a reaction that has the following definition "someone who held views that were previously in the majority but failed to notice that societal views were changing until they were clearly in the minority and they don't know how to deal with suddenly finding themselves in the minority so instead of saying "political minority" they say "cancelled."
@@pascalausensi9592 so let me sum up. 30 years ago Leftists and Social Justice advocates were not complaining about "cancel culture". They simply accepted that they were in the minority and needed to convince some of the majority and the undecided that their cause was just. Today the tables are turned, the Progressives and Social Justice Advocates find their positions to have majority approval, now those opposed, instead of trying to convince the undecided those positions are wrong simply say "cancel culture". The thing is all this does is galvanize those already in agreement, it doesn't actually bring anyone to your side because the argument is not a persuasive one instead of simply one of agrievement
@@VloggingThroughHistory What Atun-Shei means by sanitized is that there's 0 blood, 0 screams, etc. You should react to his 3 part series "fixing Gettysburg", where he points out what he means more succinctly.
What about the chik fil a shirt was being called out at the end? Too south bash-y? I thought if anything it would be the maga hat as far as caricaturizing goes (For transparency: we have different politics, but I don't ask this to be inflammatory that part just confused me)
to quote Michel Jordan. republicans buy shoes to. but if Shei is so much agaisnt the Confederacy and the lsot cause then how can he support the Democrats buy doign that.
The primary reason why I am not defensive over Confederate statues is becuase they were proped up to promote pseudo-history, though I would not plaques explaining that they were meant to promote Lost Cause Mythology.
that is the bettrer solution. just look at the fact that Aunt Jemima is not logner around. Heck the Washington Redskins are gone even though they were named that in honor of the VERY FIRST COACH OF THE TEAM
Hi! You definitely should watch Gone With The Wind. It’s definitely Lost Cause, but since it’s from a selfish woman’s point of view, it’s easy to miss that among all the pretty dresses and the burning of Atlanta (by Sherman, natch). You can totally miss the “meeting” that their menfolk go to as a Klan meeting. Because the dresses are SO PRETTY. We didn’t learn much about Reconstruction, and in stepped Gone With The Wind with its version. It’s gorgeous and has amazing acting by Hattie McDaniel and Butterfly McQueen, neither of whom were allowed to attend the Atlanta premiere, and I can’t bring myself to watch it again.
Great job as always, Chris. The ending of the video is an example of why I'm not the biggest fan of Atun-Shei. I feel like he goes too far sometimes. Especially when he brings in Nazis and things like that, he's only going to alienate the people that he's trying to convince.
@@robertortiz-wilson1588, that was the post-WW1 Klan, the post-Civil War Klan just didn't want blacks to serve in political office and such. There's a difference.
@@professorwhat2704, I mean, if you got the impression that the mid-credits scene was somehow connected to his arguments about the Civil War and the Lost Cause, that's your perspective. But I'm pretty sure most people don't see it that way.
the end of his video was out there. But for the most part i agree with his arguments, but your point also is valid as well, with not everyone being either for or against something. Thats not the way people are, unfortunately it does seem the more radical a cause the louder there voices are heard which can cloud issues.
Wow. I thought I was the last person who had never seen Gone With The Wind. Let me give you some advice. Do not make the same mistake I did. When I finally decided to watch it, I started around 9 PM. I thought it was just a normal movie. No one warned me that it was seven hours long!
My mom took us kids on an afternoon matinee when I was ten. It was the longest movie I had ever sat through. Thought it would never end. The battle scenes were exciting and some were memorable. Much of the rest, frankly my friend, I couldn't give a darn....
@@davidburroughs2244 I always thought the burning of Atlanta was the climax of the film. When that happened, I thought, thank God, it’s finally over. But no, it still went on, and on, and on…
I definitely agree with you regarding the teaching of Reconstruction. I'm from Minnesota and I do remember being taught the south seceded to preserve slavery (to the point that I was confused in college when I heard the states rights argument), but either we learned next to nothing (if anything) about Reconstruction or I remember none of it.
W/r/t sanitized Gettysburg and Glory all war movies were pretty sanitized until Saving Private Ryan which came out in 1998. We saw gnarly stuff in movies like Braveheart but the D Day scene from Saving Private Ryan was crazy to audiences 25 yrs ago.
@@Molomar1 tbh. I'd also add "Das Boot". Yes, it wasn't graphic... but doing that would be kinda hard in a submarine. It's depressing, slow, you feel it when the Boot is on the bottom of the straits of gibraltar...
Yes to everyone noting Come and See. Should also note Schindler's List came out 1993 but in general war movies were still of the "throw your hands up and fall back deaths" compared to today when everything is pretty realistic.
I think something you said last episode and I wish you clarified it more because it's a harmful presumption is the idea that the "victors write history," which is just not true. If the victors wrote the history we never would have the "Lost Cause" or any of those southern textbook issues referenced at @6:30. Rather it's "writers write history," sometimes those writers are victors, sometimes they're losers, sometimes indifferent observers, sometimes passionate motivated observers, etc., it's not easily generalizable.
The last point Billy gives to Johnny is one that lingered with me for a while.
"I've been trying to coax you out, before the people behind me drag you out."
I know a lot of people who will die on the hill of states' rights. And I've tried talking to them, but they concede on nothing, and the few who remain will die, alone on that hill.
no man will denie it was the state's rights to own slaves that were being contested but also in a major overview of things the south knew it would never have an equal voice or representation in congress ( looks at Missouri compromise)
@@50TNCSA plenty of people will deny it
Be careful mixing up state level rights with the institution of slavery. Slavery needed to go, but state level laws are highly important in the balance of the US political system.
LMAO you're funny pretending that you just made a real point.
@@50TNCSA As a southern myself...yes they do. They absolutely do.
I think Atun has a deep personal beef with films that sanitize war in general, not just because of the lost cause. He's of the opinion that all war movies should seek to show the true brutality or war and I'm with him on that.
Movies that sanitize violence that aren't meant to be absurdist fantasy kinda rub the wrong way when you realize that true horror that warfare really entails.
I get that a lot when I saw him talk about Gettysburg and Gods and Generals, particularly on the battle scenes
I would agree - that was the idea that I got from most of his takes too.
I wonder what the man would think of the film 'Come and See', I have never seen a more unsettling depiction of the horrors of warfare.
@@AresKusa I'm almost positive Atun has seen Come and See as I have noticed clips of it in some of his videos.
@@jacobrose6661 Makes sense, sounds like it'd be right up his alley. I've not seen 100% of his videos but I am working on it now!
Eh. It really depends on where you draw the line at sanitizing war. Does every movie about modern war which doesn't show blood and guts and torn limbs sanitize it? In that case, "1917" would fall in that category, since we have ONE onscreen death through stabbing. In spite of that, I thought it did a great job of conveying the anxiety and despair of the trenches of the Western Front.
There's also the practical issue of censorship and movie ratings in the US. War movies, especially overly gory ones, are more likely to get slapped with a more adult rating and that in turn can turn off people. Sometimes, sanitizing the violence is a choice to increase a potential audience. Not always a good one, and not always handled well, but there are reasons beyond glorifying war.
I have a degree in intelligence studies focusing on operations and planning. One of my classes was talking about insurgency and the teacher opened it by talking about one of the most successful ones in his opinion: the reconstruction era.
We were all surprised as most of us didn't know about it.
Fascinating, and I would say an accurate description.
@@VloggingThroughHistory if you haven’t read it, State of Rebellion by Dr. Richard Zuczek is a wonderful book regarding the Reconstruction era violence and insurgency in South Carolina.
did he mean as a counter insurgency or as a successful insurgency? both can be claimed as physical the fedreal goverment shut down the Klan but politically the insurgents got what they wanted
This community is a shining example of why rhetoric is important when talking about topics we disagree on. Not attacking us and dissenters is a good way to lead and we respect you for that!
being respectful to a disagreement is the first step in changing someone's or your own mind
@@Kriegter counter arguments said it best in his series on 12 angry men
I do understand that we need to be respectful about disagreement, but what can you do when the people dont care to listen to evidence? how much can you respect people who are unwilling to change their minds no matter how much evidence to the countrary you show, and that is the problem that I have with that statement, while I do agree that we need to be respectful, once people just start going on about feelings and preconceived notions no matter the facts and evidence then it is impossible to not make fun of them, and at some point, stubborn fools who cant change their minds no matter what cannot be approached in a reasonal and logical manner, so all is left is satire and ridicule IMO.
Perhaps but on some things such as the causes of the civil war or upholding the racist lost cause lie there is no self respecting black person who can have respect for someone who would defend those. Too much has been done to our people in the name of upholding that. Too much death, injustice and suffering. There are some views that deserve no respect. Antisemitism , anti Blackness, etc among them. There is no truth to anything the south fought for. Not any that any Black person who can look themself in the face can state. You will find some uncle tom who can perhaps.
@@vanessamaldonado5877 agreed 100%. In my experience, the people whining about respectful discourse are the sort of people who, deep down, know they’re trying to defend the indefensible, realise their arguments haven’t worked and want to gloss over the whole debate with “agree to disagree”. They want to hold onto their beliefs at all costs.
I love how utterly confused Chris was at the end XD
I have to give Atun Shei a lot of credit, he puts al ot of heart and humor into his videos but he also has a lot of understanding of history and sources his facts.
I think he can be crude but he is right in the fact that a lot of people don't learn history because they see study of history as "boring"
And when people consider looking into history as boring, anyone can convince people of anything if they make it interesting enough. I think a lot of checkmate lincolnites approach is to try and combat that.
"Your brave ancestor farmer heorically fought off a tyrant who tried to burn down his home and destroy the small state government to impose a facist empire and was stopped due to overwhelming evil powers!" sure tells a hell of a lot more interesting story than
"Your ancestor was probably just some racist Joe who fought to perserve slavery and was out manevoured by a better general who was also probably racist and then everyone suffered and died."
Which isn't even really a story.
@@seventeenseventysix5589 There's a large gap between celebrating what good traits your ancestors or forefathers had despite their flaws or bad traits and ignoring, obfuscating, white washing, or outright lying about their flaws and actual history.
The one thing that he loves is Horror mixed with history. Ravenous is his favorite film by far. ANd like others have said, the fact he made this in his living room is extremely impressive. He can be overly blunt at times, but his heart is in the right place and you can tell how much he loves the history of the Civil War.
He also is very adamant about dismantling the Lost Cause. He is a southerner that grew up thinking that
@@micahknoche8501 He is? As far as I know he grew up in New England and moved to New Orleans later. I can be wrong though.
@@robertnett9793 - The statement was that he grew up thinking the Lost Cause should be dismantled, not that he grew up in the south.
@@nialcc True
@@robertnett9793 Nialcc is right, I was off
Loved the little “wilson!😡” when the video mentions the time periods. Best running joke lol 3:30
Wilson cracks me up because left, right, middle, wherever you lie politically everyone hates Wilson
The fact they made this set in a living room was amazing
I love the end sequence where he demonstrates the lengths to which a diehard would prefer to go to avoid acknowledging the points he is trying to lead them to. Rather to engage in an absurd plot to resurrect like minds from the dead than to admit defeat.
Klaus the N@zi isn't Johnny Reb. They're separate characters. Klaus is also involved in a separate plotline in Atun-Shei Films' other series, "Frozen '50s Man". His plotline in this story has been ongoing since... Episode 3 or 4, I think. The Sword of Baron Samedi came into play last episode in an end scene.
@@samrevlej9331 I'm postulating here, but I think the concluding one will be Johnny seeing himself in the No-No man, and be forced to either side with him, or with Billy.
It was just loud and rude on his part and showed his lack of intellect by resorting to the melodramatics
@@MrWWIIBuff I'm pretty much certain Johnny's gonna redeem himself by swordfighting Klaus the Nazi and defeat him once and for all.
@@shawnmiller4781 that’s all you took away from this?
Lyon Gardiner Tyler, son of U.S. president John Tyler (1841-1845), was a historian and genealogist well known for his defense of southern causes. His presidency of the College of William and Mary ranks as a watershed in the school's history. I was curious, so I googled his name...The amount of knowledge you have blows my mind. I dabble some into history, but you've really made it come alive for me. As old as I am, I'm half-tempted to go back to school for a history degree. LOL
FYI if you didn't know, the ending is a teaser for Shei's other ongoing series "Frozen 50s man" that is basically just a giant satire of the modern age that makes fun of everybody. I recommend giving it a watch as it has some pretty high production value for a UA-cam channel.
Something gives me the feeling that given Shei's political leanings, I think there is a certain sect of people he's specifically going to target in terms of satire, not "everybody".
@@Gloomlight If you mean the Far Right, then kind of, yeah.
@@kevincola3184 The issue with current progressives is that anything further then Democrat is far right.
@@Gloomlight That goes both ways though.
Democrats/Liberals are often labeled as Marxists, Communists and Socialists by people on the Right.
@@kevincola3184 Yeah but how many content creators on UA-cam are open about their conservative values? Excluding people who specifically do content on history or politics in general?
Another amazing video with these two containing just an absolute wealth of knowledge. The sheer amount of learned history I've gotten from these videos is staggering.
I think his broader point about the Lost Causers and their current political activities is to draw a throughline from the original Lost Causers to the ones today. Saying that they haven't really changed tactics.
The argument he makes however that the lost causers of the post civil war era are the same group today advocating for free speech and railing against cancel culture is just silly.
Just like the Russian/Trump collusion hoax.
@@Joe_Momma205 if you actually listen to their arguments, they do make sense though, talking about tactics and ideological throughlines. Like, if you were going to call one party in 1860 "conservative" would you put that label on the Democrats or the Republicans? Then ask that question again about today
@@jakitron890 Hell, the Confederates *literally* called themselves “reactionary and conservative”.
@@brifox the nazis literally called themselves socialist. Does that mean the modern left in American politics is pro nazi? Of course not.
I love Atun's lore with Klaus and his other characters
Just so esoteric and yet so beautiful
Chris is, by far, the best UA-camr when it comes to historical analysis and explanation. Clearly states his known bias before going onto the topic but doesn't just take one side because that what he agrees. He does historical analysis how it's supposed to be done, by acknowledging both sides. Bravo!!!
The point about Mountain Dew Zero is a good one and well made. I would say the caveat that comes with it however is that sometimes the adoption of seemingly innocuous opinions, phrases, or symbols become 'Dogwhistles'. Sometimes a can of Mountain Dew is just that, but when it gets used consistently by one group with distasteful ideas as a "wink and nudge" way of signalling those ideas or identifying each other and bringing those ideas, however softly, into the public sphere, I think then we have to eye it more critically.
And I would counter by saying that many times opponents also accuse people of "dogwhistles" when there really aren't any. If people are bigots, they don't generally try to hide it.
@@VloggingThroughHistory I think this is one of those things that depends on the person and the setting. Online, with relative anonymity, people can be vocal about their views about (insert group here) to a degree they wouldn’t be in person. Of course some people have no problem expressing their views loudly in public, especially around a like-minded crowd. But I don’t know if I would say that’s generally the case.
Sometimes you can be influenced by certain perspectives you grew up around without necessarily recognizing that’s bigotry, through no fault of your own. It’s these more subtle things that are the hardest to recognize in ourselves or others. And as far as public figures go, Lee Atwater arguably laid the groundwork for how you express certain views with a shield of plausible deniability. That tactic has been used by some people/groups to try and spread what they believe in a more publicly acceptable manner, to mainstream their views, which is flat out designed to be difficult to call out. But that’s getting into a bit of a different conversation, beyond the scope of this.
I agree we shouldn’t rush to assume the worst in people when their intent/view is unclear and we should try to meet people where they are. But I also fully admit that as a black American that suspicion is going to be in the back of my head when people start talking about certain subjects, though I try to remain as objective as I can be and hear them out. I fully admit I have some conflicting perspectives here. But I try to talk to people, even when it’s clear we have very different ideologies.
@@VloggingThroughHistory I do completely understand your point, benefit of the doubt is important in individual cases. However dog whistles are normally present before hand, people randomly bringing up George Soaros (I probably misspelled his last name) is a fairly well known anti-semitic dogwistle so when people blame him for things its code for "Jews" broadly. Lots of people who say it probably don't realize it's anti-semitic, it's not that everyone who says his name is secretly a nazi. Its about getting people who aren't aware nudged down the path of accepting those opinions.
Agreed. You can see how after Charlottesville 2017 the far right anti-semites and fascists had to lay low and rebrand themselves strategically, because it was a massive blow to their credibility.
@@LovedandTheLover Actually, it is not a dogwhistle. Soros is a left-wing billionaire that is most known for his non-profits that fund political campaigns for progressives and other left-wing causes throughout the world. He pours a lot of money into politics worldwide. In defending him, most media call all critiques of him "anti-semitism", despite the critiques are of his views, not his Jewish ancestry (not religion, as he is an athiest).
Beware of conflation in rhetoric.
As a European I have travelled to Germany on many occasions. In my time there I have yet to see a statue to any politician or general during the period 1933-1945, it's as though those years don't exist. Oh wait, we don't get our history from statues and monuments!
Another thing about the Germans, you don't see people flying flags of the regime from 1933-1945, no one there says that the flag "represents heritage, not hate."
The South was "Reconstructed"? Who knew?
Excellent point, it's maddening seeing people defend statues of men who took up armed rebellion against the United States to preserve an evil institution like slavery.
It's as if documentaries are better at remembering history than statues and monuments.
Eh, to be fair, your government has made flying flags of that Era, or supporting that ideology an arrestable, finable, and jail able offense
Are you comparing Robert E Lee to Hitler? Why dont you stick to German history.
@@elcidcampeador9629 you obviously don't understand irony.
We learn history from books and records not statues.
I'd like to see you and Atun-Shei do a collaboration. That collaboration should be "Checkmate Wilsonites" haha
I mean, not a bad concept, but...is there even a sufficient Number of genuine 'Wilsonites'?
Like, at most, I have seen some people say: "Well, he had a point here or there, but he was overall still a bad President."
I attended Quartermaster Officer's Advanced Course in Ft Lee, VA. One of our sessions was a presentation by the post historian. He related a story where he was given a tour of the local area by a university history professor. During the tour the professor took him around Richmond to see various civil war monuments. The tour ended abruptly when the post historian noted it was an impressive display for the losers of the war. The professor kicked the historian out of his car and the historian had to find his own way back to Ft Lee.
Hope you’re feeling better today, Chris. Glad you make these reaction videos to help us all learn from each other. Thanks!
I love this UA-cam channel so much! I’m able to here apposing political view points in an organized and understandable way while also being sure of its historical accuracy. Talking about VTG by the way
Glad your feeling better now. Thank you for your civil war and world war content, you have taught this English guy so much about the U.S. civil war, something we are not taught in schools.
In fairness we’re barely taught about British history in schools. I was at school between 1995-2007 and in that time we did Romans, Tudors, Battle of Hastings, some Victorian stuff, WW1 and a bit of the Great Depression from a British perspective. Much of our GCSE’s were Cold War and American history.
Learned a lot on this channel. Thank you!
And thank you for deflecting for Shelly Foote. I don't know who could have done a better job telling the Confederate perspectives.
“History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon” - Napoleon Bonaparte
And what exactly says that quote?
if you want to put it really broad: EVERYTHING we belive because its a version we agree upon. That in itself says nothing.
If you want to to be more specific then you have to say: which history, which version, which scource, which conclusion etc?
I wonder why a man who conquered almost an entire continent and then was defeated would say something like that.
Hey, Chris. I have seen the first half of Gone with the Wind. It is more about a slow palce romance but the lost cause bs, which was the reason why I wanted to watch and mock Space Myatery Theatre 3000 style. It does have scenes of planters becoming impoverished and depicted slavery as "normal" but just bits and peaces spread throughout this 3+ hour romance. I have no idea why people were into it, from a strict screenwriting pov.
Fantastic movie
People liked it because the movie pushed a narrative that they already believed.
I don't get the lost cause connection either. Slavery was pretty tangential to the plot of the film and it is told from s certain perspective. It would be like complaining a movie about Cleopatra doesn't focus enough on how terrible slavery was. That the period is romanticized in the movie should be no surprised, romance is the genre.
@@3halfshadows I know it does not address that much but it was enough for the "mami" actress to get an Oscar. The rarely shows Lost Cause stuff, I wanted to mock it Sapce Mystery Theatre 3000 style, but a romance story that is puts James Cameron's Titanic to shame, in terms of being slow paced.
It's been forever since I saw Gone With the wind but wasn't the Rhett Butler character mostly disdainful of the whole system in the South. Mostly because he was interested in making money off the war and really wasn't considered a gentleman by most people anyway so he wasn't that attached. He always seemed more interested in people instead of the institutions around him. North or South.
Gotta be honest, I love the end of the video because the skeletons look so goofy.
Makes me think of the Evil Dead movie.
My one criticism here is you mention the “sanitized violence” in Glory. I am not sure which version of Glory you viewed but the version I saw was hardly sanitized. Heads were literally exploding and it was really bloody. Atun Shei mentions in his review of Gettysburg that he feels strongly that war films should be unrepentantly violent, that they shouldn’t try to dumb down the tragedy that they are, and he thinks Gettysburg suffered as a movie as a result. Gettysburg was far less violent than Glory.
If memory serves, "Gettysburg" was released as a TV miniseries. There were things you could do in a 90s theatrical movie that you could not get away with on broadcast TV. That being said, even if you are not showing much blood and gore, there is something horrific about squares of men charging into musket and cannon fire. I really do not find that criticism all that credible.
@@mjbull5156 I think in comparison to Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan or Blackhawk Down, they’re both rather sanitized. Something I noticed in movies is that if it is before 1914, the violence is always rather tame.
Not to mention the opening with men beating each other to death and violently drowning each other in the sucking mud.
**EDIT** That was “Lincoln”. I’m dumb.
@@Thrainitereally?? With movies like Braveheart or The Patriot? Jesus.... maybe it's just Mel Gibson movies
@@Joe45-91 Watch Apocalypto. Mel Gibson does not shy away from violence where he has free reign.
4:06 this whole “tangent” (I know the word has negative connotations to it but it’s the best word I could think of) was really well spoken.
18:33 part of the thing with his style is that he himself is a former lost cause proponent. I believe the saying is something like " no is more zealous than the converted". For us who never adhered to the lost cause it's a different perspective from someone who looks back on their old self in sheer horror.
What I find amazing about Margaret Mitchell is she was ten years old before she even learnt the South had in fact lost the war in the same way most children learn Santa isn't real around that age.
Oh I wish I could go back in time to watch your stunned silence at the cartoonish resurrection section again. When I saw you were going to react to this piece I was waiting to see if you'd cut it out or not and man I was not disappointed.
You have a point on Gettysburg, because the movie was filmed on the standard of american warmovies were BEFORE Saving Private Ryan which was just at another level.
Was already wondering if Part 2 would be coming today! :D
Also, I think you're missing the episode "Were There Really BLACK CONFEDERATES???!!!" still.
He’s also missing the very first Checkmate Lincolnites video and the one about Confederate soldiers fighting for slavery. I don’t think he is going to do those videos because he might not have much to add to those videos.
Edit: VTH said in another comment that he HASN'T seen the Black Confederate video, so he might do a reaction to that in the future.
I wouldn’t say we’ve been “Missing” them
@@shawnmiller4781 They said "you've" first of all. Second of all, why not? These are good analyses and counterpoints from two people who clearly know a lot and have a lot to say about this specific aspect of history. Personally, I find them to be great listening material while I work. Atun-Shei's irreverent and dry humor combined with VTH's very grounded responses just works
I've always thought Atun-She's videos were really well done. I love the humor he brings to Checkmate Lincolnites! and I really appreciate the fact that he meticulously footnotes his videos so you know where he's getting his information from.
I agree. I very much like his style. And yeah, it's blunt sometimes. But then again, sometimes you need to get a bit of blunt force trauma to get the point. Also the over-generalisation VTH here points out. Valid critique. But that's always the problem with explaining broader context. There are always exceptions. The question would be - are there enough exceptions to the generalisation to invalidate it.
As Atun himself said - a small flawed piece of commentary at the time as the Lost Cause myth collided with modern internet culture. Which pretty much says it all.
@@robertnett9793 I think generalizations are a valid criticism, but he acknowledges things like the fact that the southerners were fighting for more than one reason. But it's very clear from the timing of SC's secession and the fact that they didn't even wait for Lincoln to be inaugurated that it wasn't about states' rights. They saw the writing on the wall about slavery.
I live in Texas and also majored in history in college. And it was same, mostly due to lack of time. By the time we got to Reconstruction, it was close to the end of the semester/school year, so it became a matter of "how much more should [the teacher] give out before final exams?" The cut off between the two halves of US History (at least in college) was 1877.
One of the problems with history is that we tend to punctuate history with the end of the wars, then start the next paragraph with the beginning of the next war, leaving out the in-between times.
I took both semesters of us history last year, semester one ended at the beginning of the civil war, and semester two started after reconstruction. :/
@@ericbsmith42 Very true, imo, when it comes to ww1 and ww2. Those 20-21 years between are instrumental to understanding the causes, ideas etc. A lot of parallells between the South’s defeat and Germany’s defeat in ww1 and how it shaped rhetoric and ideas, except Germany of course took a WHOLE different turn.
First time watching your reactions big fan! Yet, I do believe the difference in how certain periods in US History are taught depends on what state and even what district is in charge of the curriculum and textbooks. Due to my parent's jobs, we have to move frequently I distinctly remember changes in the way certain periods were taught in different states like Texas and Minnesota. So, I believe the lack of proper learning and the washing perspective have influenced the little effort we put into this part of history. Keep up with the great content!
My stand with the statues and monuments is understanding there is a difference in remembering history and worshipping it.
There's also the point that many of those were errected in, or near black communities or gathering places. You know 'to show 'em where their place is.'
My biggest issue is the extralegality of a lot of these takedowns. If communities vote to legally remove these statues, that's their decision. If the statues were made with a specific historical occurrence in mind and aren't part of the lost-cause narrative, then they should go to a museum or such, otherwise they can melt them down for all I care. But the issue is when mobs of protesters go around tearing down statues of the past, *even abolitionists and union heroes* , with no one trying to stop them? That's when we have a serious problem.
And if they truly represent "States Rights" as claimed, there needs to less moaning when the states remove them by popular vote.
I used to have a manager who got his history degree from Texas Tech. He knew two things about U.S. Grant: 1) He was a drunk, and 2) He only won because of superior numbers. He was TAUGHT that by history professors.
That ending was pretty out there but cool, love his videos and your reactions to them
My understanding of the caricature of the "modern republican" is that he is being used, manipulated and spent by people who have far worse ideas than he does. He states he is uncomfortable, this is too far for him and his beliefs, and for falling to Klaus he is killed. I believe many people who follow the lost cause or other ideologies like it do so in good faith, to solely the benefit of far worse people.
Hey VTH.
I've been a fan of both you and Mr. Beat for a very long time now, and I think you guys' friendship is awesome, especially since you disagree on a number of things. It's well known at this point that the two of you disagree on the electoral college. Could you maybe make a video about the electoral college, perhaps reacting to Mr. Beat's video about why he doesn't like it?
Much love from California ❤️
He texted me a few days ago and said I needed to do that one next.
@@VloggingThroughHistoryI support Mr. Beat on that.
@@VloggingThroughHistory I second the motion.
Personally, I'm not an American citizen or even a resident anymore, but I did live here in some of the most formative years of my life, and as it is still the most powerful country in the world, I keep an interest in its politics and history.
So, as a foreigner who has lived through US presidential elections (with my own qualms about my own country's electoral system), I would agree with Mr Beat's point. I also disagree politically with you on a number of issues, but I appreciate your efforts to listen to the other side and your dedication to history on multiple topics. It would be very interesting to listen to your counterpoints and what that says about how you view politics.
@@VloggingThroughHistory It'll be interesting to see your thoughts. I've long thought that the best argument for the Electoral College was a purely practical one at the time in the late 18th century: tallying votes from a national popular vote election would be a total nightmare with the transportation and communication infrastructure that existed in the 1790s or even the 1830s (imagine preparing to inaugurate someone when a few more towns come in to tilt the balance the other way) and it's not really until the railroad and telegraph era that a popular vote election model would even be remotely feasible. Madison and co could not see that same day communication across a continent would be invented and the very idea of that would've been extremely outlandish. That said, there's no reason to preserve it now.
I do think that it's worth noting that just about every country in Latin America is a Presidential Republic of some sort and all of them are either one round popular vote elections (eg Mexico) or are two round top two runoff elections (eg Brazil or Peru). France is also a Presidential Republic and it does two round top two runoffs. No other modern nation with a Presidential system does an electoral college. Two round top two runoffs may be suspenseful but they also deal with the problem of a candidate winning by a small plurality in a three way race, like Calderon becoming President of Mexico in 2006 with only 37% of the vote. I think a two round top two runoff is probably the best way to go with American Presidential elections: less difficult to understand than instant runoff voting and if a candidate gets over 50% dispense with the second round and just have a winner, but it eliminates spoiler effects in races with a strong third party presence.
@@pattersong6637 My suggestion would be if keeping the Electoral College, make it proportional instead of "winner-takes-all". The current system makes it so Republican voters in blue states and Democratic voters in red states are ignored.
I really like Shelby Foote, he's a magnificent storyteller and I think his focus on the human side of the civil war is what made the Ken Burns documentary so incredible. He get's a bad rap for being a lost cause figure with some good reason (In his Ken Burns interview he talks about the lost cause but that was cut) but I think he is pretty down to earth about all the people that are deified by most in the south. For example, he viewed Stonewall Jackson as a pretty good general and a tough person but also as an eerie, sadistic zealot who did some pretty crazy stuff on the battlefield. He viewed Robert E Lee as the best general in the South and an honorable man but also the guy who ordered Pickett's Charge because he got cocky and threw away thousands of his own men. Foote had similar nuance about Lincoln, Forrest, Davis, Grant ect. He is also great at telling stories that describe the attitudes of the average people, like when he talks about guys throwing apples at each other while waiting for the order to attack at Gettysburg (Run old Hare!), when he talks about that union guard who talked to an owl that one time, what soldiers ate (Sloosh for the South, and bulletproof biscuits for the north) and that photo of the confederate prisoners at Gettysburg. I think Atun-Shei (as much of a fan I am of his) doesn't give the Ken Burns documentary enough credit here by saying they over relied on Shelby Foote. I think his nuance about the big players and also his stories from the average soldiers bring that documentary so much humanity that would be missing otherwise and that couldn't be further from the myth of these people that the lost cause perpetuates.
Agreed whole-heartedly! Shelby Foote shouldn't just be discarded.
It's interesting that he is lumped in with the Lost Causers when Shelby said many times the South literally had no shot at victory.
@@firingallcylinders2949 But... "we had no chance!" also is part of the Lost Cause ideology... Basically: "We had no chance, the North fought with one armed tied to its back and always could just bring the other out! Isn't it a sign of how valiant our soldiers were that they still put up such a great fight?"
Which, of course makes it rather shizophrenic when, the next mooment, the next point is "We would''ve won, if..."
@@undertakernumberone1 I see the opposite. Every lost causer I ever see says the Confederacy could've won if: and then they usually list the British helping, or if Stonewall hadn't died, or Ewell had taken the hill beyond Gettysburg, or if they had more industry etc. Foote never listed all these reasons the South could've won with he always just said yea no shot, it was always doomed.
@@firingallcylinders2949 and I've seen both used, depending on what's more expedient.
Like the apologists who created the “stabbed-in-the-back” myth to explain Germany’s defeat in World War I, Lost Cause spokesmen sought to rationalize the Southern military loss. This presented a confusing and sometimes contradictory set of assertions, the first of which simply manipulated semantics: the Confederates had not really been defeated, they had instead been overwhelmed by massive Northern manpower and materiel. This was presented with a suggestion that the North’s superior resources constituted Yankee trickery and unfairness. Furthermore, the South’s loss was said to be inevitable from the beginning; the fact of loss was somehow mitigated in the myth because it was said that winning had been impossible. If the Confederacy could not have won, it somehow did not lose. On the other hand, the myth asserted that had the South won at Gettysburg, it would have won the war. The loss at Gettysburg was attributed to Lt. Gen. James Longstreet. The “Longstreet-lost-it-at-Gettysburg”21 thesis was presented in this way by Rev. J. William Jones, secretary of the Southern Historical Society. He wrote that “the South would have won at Gettysburg, and Independence, but for the failure of one man” (emphasis in original).22
Gallagher, Gary W.. The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History (S.17). Indiana University Press. Kindle-Version.
Gettysburg had sanitised violence - because it was originally a tv series, the movie only had limited theatrical release, and that's how I was it in London.
That was a very entertaining ending, to say the least.
Also, thanks for everything you do. I do thoroughly enjoy watching your reaction videos. Whether you agree or disagree, you keep a level head and debate/analyze with respect and decency. That's fun to watch in my book.
Question- about his metaphor of the hated blue uniform being turned into kaki...did not the US cavalry adopt gray hats somewhere around 1880s?
He makes a good point about how the history isn’t always written by the victors. Another video that talks about this is the videos by Potential History “History is not written by the victors” and “Germany, the Cold War, and a persuasive narrative”
Been waiting all day for this.
History and how it is taught different over time or from different perspectives or when ideology plays a role is interesting to observe.
In what is equivalent to high school I had a history teacher who got his hands on some books from both sides of the iron curtain (from the two Germanies). And every now and the we compared the topic we studied between the three versions:
Our current history book
West German cold war book
East German cold war book
Even for topics where one would think they are quite removed from ideological views or far enough back for a common consensus we found quite striking differences. In particular when potential motivations of people in history were discussed.
13:19 i mean the man referred to "come and see" as "what every war movie should be", i *really* don't think he's gonna go to the mat in defense of "glory" that hard
Regarding the comment at 3:50 - You’re right in principle, but I think you’re missing the point. He’s not saying, “Complaining about cancel culture is bad because Lost Causers are bad,” nor even, “Lost Causers are bad because complaining about cancel culture is bad.” He’s saying, “Lost Causers are cynically using concerns about cancel culture to paint themselves as victims and garner sympathy from people who think cancel culture is a problem.” Sure, he might be alluding to a common pattern of behavior of people with hateful ideologies defending their views by whining about cancel culture. But that’s not so much guilt by association as just a shorthand to describe the rhetoric they use today.
Having a community like this to have open and respectful conversations is a wonderful thing. In today's time, it is far to easy to lose sight that you can disagree with someone and still have a fruitful discussion about the matter and remain respectful to each other.
In regards to the issue of monuments/statues, I would prefer that they either remain in place or be moved to museums when they can be studied and used in an educational way. When pieces of history - no matter how distasteful they may be by today's standards - are destroyed, it only serves to remove the discussion surrounding them. Acting as though something didn't happen is not a solution; it only serves to drive people apart. The Confederate statue in my town is a memorial to the ones who lost their lives and I honor their memory. Members of my family died in that war protecting their homes and their way of life. Most of whom were far too poor to have owned slaves.
Yes, the war was about slavery. But, that does not mean that every southern soldier was an evil person in the same way that not every German soldier in the 30-40's was an evil person. As a person who has lived my entire life in north Mississippi, I can still clearly see the scars left on society from the war. In my opinion, it is still the main cause of why the South lags behind the rest of the nation in terms of economy, infrastructure, and education even to this very day. It's not that hard to understand why so many people -mostly the older generation at this point - still feel that pain and that feeling of isolation and betrayal due to some of the things that happened both during the war and during Reconstruction.
Thank you again for always making such great videos and giving such poignant commentary always. And thanks again to the rest of the community here for having the ability to have frank yet respectful conversations. Always remember, no matter where you stand in your opinions, we all have far more in common than we will ever have in differences.
I'm a fellow Mississippian. I think it's been said many times by both Attun Shei and by Vlogging that personal reasons for going to war were diverse, protecting the home, boredom, peer pressure, escaping the responsibilities of home and hearth, and yes protecting slavery. But the reason for a war is what the institutions of government say it is, and our state, Mississippi, was very clear that their, our, reason for secession was to preserve the institution of slavery. If you haven't you should take a trip to Jackson to see the Civil Rights Museum. It's amazing and a revelation. It covers some of the post reconstruction period that he refers to. Definitely worth the trip. Be prepared to be challenged.
@@msspi764 I agree. I didn't mean to imply that Atun-Shei or VtH have said otherwise. Our state was at the forefront of the protection of the institution of slavery. It's a fault that will stain us forever. It's still rare to ever see a positive story in the national media about either Mississippi or Alabama. There is no defending that. I believe VtH even said in part 1 of this that people fought for all reasons. I was speaking mainly in regards to the entire discussion overall and highlighting how great this community is for that very fact. It wasn't meant to be an accusation against anyone here.
"In my opinion, it is still the main cause of why the South lags behind the rest of the nation in terms of economy, infrastructure, and education even to this very day." That statement isn't entirely accurate in the year 2022. Was it accurate in 1970? Maybe. But 2022, no. Manufacturing and infrastructure have been very rapidly developing in the South over the last ten years, and the northeast is starting to stagnate. Many manufacturing industries from metallurgy to vehicles and even weapons industries have moved to the south because of less regulation and more business-friendly state level laws. The US has become far more industrially distributed, and you will find developed and undeveloped areas in many parts of the US, including the north. In fact, the migration of the middle class, young professionals, and the wealthy out of the Northeast is becoming noticeable. You can go to some parts of rural PA or NJ and you will find some very sad spots. In terms of evidence, check the moving industry data, property tax regulations, and the actual transfers of corporate headquarters. It might be hard to tell, but the economic and business ties are shifting. In 100 years, it is a strong possibility that the south will easily pass and out-lap the northeast completely... in some ways it has already happened.
@@willd7596 I think this is a reasonable observation, though there are other influences as well. Proximity to resources needed in manufacturing was a big issue in the 19th century. Not so much cotton, but iron ore, steel, coal all meant that the industries needed to be close to the resources, Pittsburgh and Bethlehem PA and Birmingham are classic examples. The transportation revolution of the time, canals, early railroads, ships, made New Orleans, Baltimore, New York, and Boston centers of industry. That changed in the mid 20th century with another more impactful transportation revolution. That opens the doors to developing industries away from the transportation hubs. Not completely, there are corridors along interstates just as there were corridors along rail lines in the 19th century. Vicksburg became a target because it was a hub with the Mississippi River and a rail line that was east-west on both sides of the river and connected by a ferry. The railroad bypassed Natchez, so the US and Confederate armies largely ignored it leaving an unparalleled collection of mansions and historic buildings untouched.
Another reason for the southern efforts to attract industry, at least in my state, is the extensive poverty and poor educational systems that produce people who need jobs. That's changing for two reasons, The post Covid situation has resulted in close to full employment. It has also created opportunities for people to work remotely. An effort now underway to provide high speed connectivity to much more of my state will do more to combat poverty than the huge tax breaks and support for brick and mortar industrial centers. So I agree with you about the economic development of the South, but not for some of the reasons you state.
THANK YOU for that Mountain Dew Zero analogy! 1. I too like it and 2. The point you were making is what I've been trying to get across to a certain element of my friends/family (in vain I might add).
Should probably let you know, that chick-fil-a shirt and maga hat combo is an actual outfit i've seen multiple times in person, you just have to live in the right communities to see it regularly. I assure you that was probably not a caricature given that atun lives in New Orleans.
I think the point was that accusing the modern republican (the maga hat and chick fil a shirt) of Nazism is far fetched and bordering on ridiculous
@@MomoKawashima5 He didn't seem to be in on the Nazi's plan.
5:10 Thank you for that. I think that's a VERY important point that way too many people (echoing you: from both sides) get trapped by.
I've only seen a couple of the films mentioned I think the issue is that they leave you with the feeling that the South was somehow a wistful and almost chivalric society which were almost forced to defend themselves and their idyllic rural way of life. Everyone even the opposing forces were so polite and almost apologetic about the whole thing and I guess that impression stays more after watching them rather than the racial and economic issues.
Yeah, they clearly whitewashed all the times when people in both the USA and CSA called for the raping, pillaging, and destruction of the other. The fact was both sides hated each other, and it was only due to individuals who wanted reconcilliation like Lincoln and Grant (or outright Southern sympathizers like Johnson), that the South wasn't punished even more after Appamattox.
I found your channel a couple weeks ago. Best history channel I’ve seen. Keep it up ❤
Well, as growing up in the rural South, do I know what Aten/Andy is angry with? Hell, yea. To this day. The Lost Cause is a real thing to this day around here.
Andy chooses to make his home in New Orleans, Chris chooses to make his in Ohio. That’s not meant as a criticism of VLOG’s reaction. Just something to think about in context.
Now, the obvious disdain VLOG had for the final scene is unwarranted? I don’t think. The historian and artist in Aten seems to me to have been overlapped. And yeah, it was a little over the top. Believe me, I get it.
But…VLOG didn’t grow up here, I did and Checkmate Lincolnites has chosen to make his home here. So, he ain’t crazy with that tomb scene.
Anyway, I’m a fan of both creators. If VLOG got annoyed with the final scene. So, as someone that grew up and was indoctrinated and had the big lie grilled into one’s head, I perhaps something to think on.
And I agree, the final scene was over the top! But the message and that it should be thought about. (I even rolled my eyes at the SS uniform, but I knew what he was going for), so I get VLOG’s deadpan.
Anyway, I had a great Thanksgiving and hope the two creators and everyone reading this had the same. Cowboys won!
Truth to be said, I'm sorta agree about that last scene being... ooooph, but not because it's distasteful or over the top. I really think it's downplays the message of last speech made in actual dialogue video.
I half expected Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter to come in at the end swinging his ax and destroying the Southern zombies.
He actually reacted to the acting part this time! Last time there was an aftershow play he skipped it!
Yesss on to part 2 keep up the great work Chris 💪👍
3:30 once again you can see the contempt for President Wilson.
Love the original show and your breakdowns.
I took AP US history from 2010 to 2011 and we definitely spent a lot of time on reconstruction, I know for a fact that my teacher didn't cover it very much in his regular classes though
I was in normal US History in 2015 (non AP) and I hardly remember talking about reconstruction at all. To be fair I wasn't exactly the best student in the world, but I feel like I would remember learning about something so culturally significant, such as reconstruction.
@@nathansimpson5721 you may not honestly. I distinctly remember it being the most tedious and annoying segment of the entire class. Idk if it just doesn't fit well with classroom settings or if it's just a result of me maturing but I find it MUCH more interesting now even though I was a history buff even back then
@@ryantannar5301 problem is that I took APUSH during covid so I was basically just reading the textbook
It could have also been just a problem with the teacher not presenting it in an interesting way.
@@MarvinCZ normally I'd say yes, but that would mean this teacher managed to make literally every other aspect of US history absolutely enthralling. Maybe he hated studying that specific time period
I say Atun-Shei is right about Ken Burns. Let me put it this way: at one point "The Civil War", Burns is detailing the differences between the Confederate and Union Constitutions, and he mentions that the Confederate one gives the president the line-item veto. You know what he doesn't mention? All the parts that were added to enshrine slavery forever. Honestly, it's funny all the things Ken Burns missed in his research, like those Declarations of Causes of Secession. Burns managed to find a recording of an actual Southern veteran doing a rebel yell - something Shelby Foote mentioned he'd never heard - yet Burns apparently never found the Declarations. Because if he had and simply refused to mention them, that'd make him a pretty untrustworthy historical presenter.
You two are definitely my favorite Civil War centric youtube channels and I fall somewhere in between. It also being a big focus of my own time and study. I genuinely feel that most (not all) of your issues with him and his presentation around him overly focusing on Lost Cause etc is just that this is the entire point and topic of these videos and less to do with him specifically. If you haven't watched it I highly recommend watching the interview between him and Mr. Beat where he even takes a good long moment expressing how he feels his videos might come across as overly demonizing Southern Confederate slave owners due to the nature of the focus of his video. That he genuinely thinks there's another side and he wants to represent that a bit more. It's just the nature of the videos. Kind of like someone who writes books on dismissing conspiracy theories doesn't mean that person doesn't believe in any. I think you'd find him less focuses on that overall despite these videos being themed on that topic.
Also your point about our lack of focus on reconstruction history and it's importance might make the rest of the Nation complacent in some way feels like you coming full circle to his point you were challenging earlier. I think his point wasn't that the North and elsewhere were fully bought into Lost Cause mythos etc, but basically your point there. That they sacrificed history and the standing of African Americans to unite White America essentially.
I'd love to see some sort of collab with you. Maybe an interview or just a back and forth where you can debate some of the differences and talk about much of what you agree with. Maybe a civilized back and forth debate on Gettysburg and Gods and Generals and see both of you argue your points on it being Lost Cause mythos or not.
I'd give anything to see a video about Civil War discussion with VTH and Atun-Shei
God, I wish Andy would have him on for a livestream sometime soon.
That would be something worth multiple bags of popcorn and a really wonderful glass of whiskey.
This is my first video of yours I’m commenting on. I’ve been a lurker but I really enjoy your videos. I learn so much!
As far as Atun goes, he’s very well informed which is nice to see. I hate ‘informative’ videos that aren’t very, well, informative. He’s very creative and I like the presentation of Billy Yankee vs. Johnny Reb, and they make me laugh! One thing that gets me though about is his tendency (not on everything but it is a tendency) to lump a bunch of people into one group. Nobody is all black or all white. We are all shades of grey when it comes to politics, religion, etc. But in these last few years we’ve become incredibly divided, and the tendency to be divisive can spill over into our viewpoints of the world, past or present.
I believe we all need to look at history through the glasses of that time in history. I try to do that and I feel bad when I don’t. And thank you Chris for reminding us to do that. I appreciate the reminders. Keep up the good work! And I can’t wait for more videos!
Sounding better, hope that means you’re well on the mend.
I love the part where the "union solider" starts cursing out the "confederate solider" trying to explain to him that he is trying to help him out lol
I didn't find that part good at all. It was self-righteous demagoguery. You don't help people by cursing them out. Outside of the Army, when would that ever help?
The cursing was just emotional language, the message was the important part.
@@kevinwilde3814 These are characters. This is a skit for a plotline that is tying in with another series he is creating.
The awkward looks to the side when he was using the f word every other word is meee lol
“If Northerners . . . had peaceably allowed the seceders to depart, the result might fairly have been quoted as illustrating the advantages of Democracy; but when Republicans put empire above liberty, and resorted to political oppression and war rather than suffer any abatement of national power, it was clear that nature at Washington was precisely the same as nature at St. Petersburg. . . . Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms.” ~ The Times of London 13 Sep 1862, Lost-Causin' it back before it was cool... on the heels of Second Manassas
i am convinced that "the south was right" comment was made specifically so that whoever wrote it could appear in an Atun Shei video
I wouldn't call Glory "sanitized violence" it probably got its R rating for that union officers head exploding from a cannon ball during the Antietam battle scene alone.
I recall an article I read many years ago on the topic "how to be a better boyfriend" (or something along those lines). One of the points listed was "watch Gone With The Wind with her at least once. It doesn't hurt." Well, I did. And it hurt. And that was long before I learned this context.
It's not that I disagree with the information he presents. It's the biased manner in which it's presented. It's been pretty well documented that if you don't think all the southern soldiers and populace were anything but a bunch of blood thirsty murdering racist savages, you're wrong according to Atun-Shei.
I'm not sure anyone has ever argued that there weren't southerners who were racist, and if so they're quickly dismissed. Of course there were, and continue to be, southerners who are racist. There are also, right this second, Californians and New Yorkers who are so racist they'd give Lee a run for his money. The war for the south was about preserving the institution of slavery. Ok, I agree. He's never changed my mind on that because it's something I already agreed with. However, the war for the north wasn't about destroying that institution, and he consistently skips cleanly over that. The bag of racist quotes from southern soldiers is accurate. Ok. Where is the bag of racist quotes from northern soldiers? The information is always presented from him as though it was only the south who was racist with slaves, and the northern soldiers were just heroes freeing black people from the inescapable bonds of slavery while welcoming these newly freed slaves with open arms. That's patently asinine, and provably and demonstrably false. Where are the quotes from northerners about not wanting freed slaves in the north either? Where are the quotes from northern civilians and soldiers that match nearly verbatim the sentiment presented by the southern soldiers and civilians?
EDIT: IF we can agree that the south launched a campaign to change the reasons for the war, can't we also agree that the north did as well, and that both sides white washed the history for their own benefit? If the rationale for bringing things like this to light to the masses is education, shouldn't it be all inclusive?
In Lexington KY, an equestrian statue of John Hunt Morgan (a Lexingtonian) was placed in the very spot where the second largest slave market in the entire South had stood.....
it was moved to Lexington cemetery near to where the Morgans were buried.....thank goodness.....
If there's one thing I'd really take issue with about his series, it's that Johnny Reb is basically a cartoon character but Billy Yank is just...him. I'd love Billy Yank to have a thick period-appropriate New York accent and have strong period appropriate opinions about draft dodging rich people, immigrant draft riots, or whether or not President Grant was to blame for half the Republican Party being on the take from the Union Pacific Railroad in the Credit Mobilier scandal and how their corruption directly led to the Democratic victory in the 1874 midterms that dramatically scaled back Grant's Reconstruction project (by the time Reconstruction officially ended in 1876 only two Southern states even still had troops in them).
It just kind of annoys me that Johnny Reb is a clown and Billy Yank is the omniscient narrator: the show would be so much more fun if both of them were strawmen. It'd allow more issues to be tackled!
This is a very good point. As someone that grew up in the north but has also lived in the South I think it's very unfair.
It is a show deliberately poised with debunking the Lost Cause myth. It is not a show trying to accurately show lived history or opinions or speech patterns of the people of the time. Hell Jonny's words are 80% modern shittakes of Lost Causes that Atun Shei finds, just with a little flair to the accent. Johnny Reb is a joke because modern Lost Causers are a joke
I actually met Lyon Gardiner Tyler's son, Harrison Ruffin Tyler, on a couple of occasions. He owns the site of Fort Pocahontas on the James River in Virginia, and my reenactment unit, the 1st MD US Infantry, participated in several reenactments there. Actually a really cool site - the earthwork fort is still mostly intact and it's on a bluff with beautiful views of the river. Mr. Tyler, who is actually President Tyler's grandson, would drive around on a golf cart and greet the reenactors on occasion.
That’s really cool! He’s a distant cousin of my wife who (like President Tyler’s wife) is a direct descendant of Lyon Gardiner.
I would say that the Lost Cause isn’t in Texas, but I don’t that it is, I was homeschooled growing up and both my parents were from the north so I never heard anything but it being about slavery. I was genuinely surprised to learn that was a view on history
I think A-S overestimates how much the Lost Cause myth is actually seriously believed.
@@willd7596 he specifically states that the myth is dying and that the holdouts are an increasingly insignificant voice. The thing is they still exist and tend to be quite vocal within thier own little echochambers.
I hate how political history has gotten as of late
I’m really glad that I found your channel at the beginning of year I like your reaction videos but I really like your videos on the us civil war because don’t get much over here in the uk You have a great way of making your videos more that cold facts you bring feeling to them. Ps what do you think the score will be Friday? Should be a good game
2-1 England, as much as I'm hoping the US can pull it off.
@@VloggingThroughHistory i would be happy with that score I’d like you to qualify out of the group to thought you were unlucky last night it looked like your players were getting tried towards the end.
2:33
It would make sense if it was John Tyler’s son since John Tyler was elected to the Confederate House of Representatives before his death
In his book about Guerrilla Warfare called “Invisible Armies” Max Boot has a chapter called The Destruction of Reconstruction.
Unfortunately I've often found that discussion with lost causers, especially on platforms like UA-cam and Quora is like Wack-a-mole whilst trying to navigate a maze as they try to move in different directions to get one up on you.
It's because for all their passion and obsession with Civil War History, they never once bother to actually do basic reading, let alone understand how scholarship, source critiquing and all that works. It'd literally be like trying to disprove Einstein's theories when your math is so bad you can't even calculate 1+1. It's why actual historians laugh at them and Gary Gallagher in all his politenes and restraint still had to call the Black Confederate movement "demented".
It's like playing logical fallacy bingo.
7:40 - It's not a coincidence Atun-Shei has na zi skits in many of his civil war videos.
I've watched the Burns series many times and I think Shelby Foote was extremely fair and critical of the confederacy and I'm a born and raised Massachusetts man with zero ties to the south... honestly think he was far more objective and unbiased than Atun Shei
Great community, love being part of it :)
Using the cancel culture argument the way he did was calling into question whether there actually is a cancel culture to begin with. It's an easy argument to make actually. First, because a lot of the people, if not the most influential people, who complain about cancel culture are doing so from UA-cam channels with literally millions of subscribers, websites that have hundreds of thousands if not millions of subscriptions and the most watched cable news show in the United States. When someone making millions of $ a year talking is claiming they are simultaneously being cancelled it's easy to say cancel culture isn't a thing.
Our friend here is clearly of the mind that people who are complaining about "cancel culture" are only complaining about being critiqued for their statements rather than simply being accepted under the auspices of "there are two sides to every argument" and that, sometimes, people walk with their wallets when they hear a critique and then in turn the free market works as intended.
I will grant u it is true that many people who complain about cancel culture do have large platforms. However in many cases they’re often speaking for those who don’t have large platforms. There are definitely examples out there of normal regular people getting “canceled” for something that may be relatively benign or at least the intent wasn’t to cause any issue. It may not be as large an issue as some would make it but that doesn’t mean it’s not a problem at all
@@stpackers the "regular" people getting cancelled though are people largely getting cancelled by their peer group. I know it sucks but that is how peer groups have always worked. I was once the VP of College Republicans at one of the nations largest Universities. I then evolved over time and while I didn't vote for a number of year I eventually supported Bernie (then Hillary when he lost) and then Bernie (then Biden when he lost). Do you think I might have been "cancelled" by my GOP/MAGA friends? I was literally raged at, cursed and shouted down, right before they unfriended me across all social media. This however is how it's always worked.
Let me use an analogy. As a kid you are the geek having sleepovers so you can all wake up to watch Robotech on Saturday morning? If so you are likely getting "cancelled" at school by the "jocks" and popular crowd. The problem is the dynamic has switched.
The Conservative position used to be the "jock"/"popular" position, politically, since Reagan (remember Reagan Democrats?) Now the more Liberal/Progressive position is the popular/majoritarian position. The people not being willing to accept that the dynamic has switched are using the term "cancelled" to cover up for the fact that their views are not only unpopular but in the minority. That's how social interactions work and have always worked, it's just that people find it more complicated to have a "public" and "private" persona thanks to social media where they might have a bad day and let their "private" persona into the "public" realm. Again though, it's not "cancel" culture, it's just your peers saying "really? Find another peer group." And that peer group is out there, just like it was in grade school and highschool
Two observations:
Firstly, your argument assumes that those complaining about cancel culture are denouncing something that they personally experience, rather than something they observe in society at large. If it's the later, then their huge audiences could actually be taken as evidence that what they say is true, their message clearly resonates with a lot of people after all.
Secondly, it also takes as a given that someone can't be both popular and 'cancelled' at the same time which I wouldn't take as obvious at all. Simply put, taking two groups of people x and y, I don't see why a controversial speaker couldn't be loved by x and loathed by y simultaneously.
@@pascalausensi9592 first if people denouncing "cancel culture" haven't experienced it themselves then they are denouncing something told to them by people obviously not cancelled because they have a large enough of a platform to get out a message. That is how we observe things in a society as large as ours. If it's not effecting us, or our peer group, directly we are seeing it in the media from a talking head that somehow is informing us of the cancellation, even if they are obviously not cancelled.
Second the very definition of "cancel culture" is the idea that there is an ostracism in the social and professional circles of the individual. This is exactly why I used the analogy I did. I am Gen-X, I was that VP I spoke of in the late 80's and early 90's. I literally see a simple flip.
I'll use an example a real life political example. In the early to mid 90's were there LGBTQ+ advocates who were protesting for their Rights and AIDs research complaining about "cancel culture"? Nope they knew they were the minority but protested anyway knowing their position was a minoritarian one.
Now the dynamic has switched. Those against LGBTQ+ Rights and the like are in the minority but when they are called out on it they say "cancel culture."
In short, from my arm chair, "cancel culture" seems to be a reaction that has the following definition "someone who held views that were previously in the majority but failed to notice that societal views were changing until they were clearly in the minority and they don't know how to deal with suddenly finding themselves in the minority so instead of saying "political minority" they say "cancelled."
@@pascalausensi9592 so let me sum up. 30 years ago Leftists and Social Justice advocates were not complaining about "cancel culture". They simply accepted that they were in the minority and needed to convince some of the majority and the undecided that their cause was just.
Today the tables are turned, the Progressives and Social Justice Advocates find their positions to have majority approval, now those opposed, instead of trying to convince the undecided those positions are wrong simply say "cancel culture". The thing is all this does is galvanize those already in agreement, it doesn't actually bring anyone to your side because the argument is not a persuasive one instead of simply one of agrievement
Watches Glory for Sanitized violence immediately sees a human head explodes in the first minutes of the movie.
After which it was completely sanitized.
@@VloggingThroughHistory What Atun-Shei means by sanitized is that there's 0 blood, 0 screams, etc.
You should react to his 3 part series "fixing Gettysburg", where he points out what he means more succinctly.
What about the chik fil a shirt was being called out at the end? Too south bash-y? I thought if anything it would be the maga hat as far as caricaturizing goes
(For transparency: we have different politics, but I don't ask this to be inflammatory that part just confused me)
to quote Michel Jordan. republicans buy shoes to. but if Shei is so much agaisnt the Confederacy and the lsot cause then how can he support the Democrats buy doign that.
You should watch the Frozen 50s Man and Witchfinder General stuff as these episodes lead into that
The primary reason why I am not defensive over Confederate statues is becuase they were proped up to promote pseudo-history, though I would not plaques explaining that they were meant to promote Lost Cause Mythology.
that is the bettrer solution. just look at the fact that Aunt Jemima is not logner around. Heck the Washington Redskins are gone even though they were named that in honor of the VERY FIRST COACH OF THE TEAM
Hi! You definitely should watch Gone With The Wind. It’s definitely Lost Cause, but since it’s from a selfish woman’s point of view, it’s easy to miss that among all the pretty dresses and the burning of Atlanta (by Sherman, natch). You can totally miss the “meeting” that their menfolk go to as a Klan meeting. Because the dresses are SO PRETTY. We didn’t learn much about Reconstruction, and in stepped Gone With The Wind with its version. It’s gorgeous and has amazing acting by Hattie McDaniel and Butterfly McQueen, neither of whom were allowed to attend the Atlanta premiere, and I can’t bring myself to watch it again.
Gone With The Wind was a pretty good movie. I saw it as a way to humanize some Southerners.
Agreed.
@@robertortiz-wilson1588 the movie didn’t humanize ALL Confederates but some.
@@mattway18 correct.
I think the thing to be concluded is the stinger, it references other works by Atun-Shei (mostly Frozen 50s Man). Not "Checkmate, Lincolnites!".
Great job as always, Chris.
The ending of the video is an example of why I'm not the biggest fan of Atun-Shei. I feel like he goes too far sometimes. Especially when he brings in Nazis and things like that, he's only going to alienate the people that he's trying to convince.
Especially considering groups like The Clan after the Civil War were anti-german, anti-irish, and anti-catholic, etc.
The ending is supposed to be entertainment, it's not in any way meant to be part of Andy's arguments.
@@robertortiz-wilson1588, that was the post-WW1 Klan, the post-Civil War Klan just didn't want blacks to serve in political office and such. There's a difference.
@@occam7382 That doesn't change the impression it gives though.
@@professorwhat2704, I mean, if you got the impression that the mid-credits scene was somehow connected to his arguments about the Civil War and the Lost Cause, that's your perspective. But I'm pretty sure most people don't see it that way.
the end of his video was out there. But for the most part i agree with his arguments, but your point also is valid as well, with not everyone being either for or against something. Thats not the way people are, unfortunately it does seem the more radical a cause the louder there voices are heard which can cloud issues.
Wow. I thought I was the last person who had never seen Gone With The Wind.
Let me give you some advice. Do not make the same mistake I did. When I finally decided to watch it, I started around 9 PM. I thought it was just a normal movie. No one warned me that it was seven hours long!
It’s 4 1/2 hours. Not sure where you got 7 hours.
My mom took us kids on an afternoon matinee when I was ten. It was the longest movie I had ever sat through. Thought it would never end. The battle scenes were exciting and some were memorable. Much of the rest, frankly my friend, I couldn't give a darn....
@@davidburroughs2244 I always thought the burning of Atlanta was the climax of the film. When that happened, I thought, thank God, it’s finally over. But no, it still went on, and on, and on…
I definitely agree with you regarding the teaching of Reconstruction. I'm from Minnesota and I do remember being taught the south seceded to preserve slavery (to the point that I was confused in college when I heard the states rights argument), but either we learned next to nothing (if anything) about Reconstruction or I remember none of it.
W/r/t sanitized Gettysburg and Glory all war movies were pretty sanitized until Saving Private Ryan which came out in 1998. We saw gnarly stuff in movies like Braveheart but the D Day scene from Saving Private Ryan was crazy to audiences 25 yrs ago.
Meanwhile All Quiet on the Western Front 1930.
Come and See came out in 1985 and is one of the most brutal, horrifying war movies you can watch. Perfectly showcases just how hellish war really is.
@@Molomar1 Come and See is a a soviet movie tough, and a pretty exceptional outlier either way
@@Molomar1 tbh. I'd also add "Das Boot". Yes, it wasn't graphic... but doing that would be kinda hard in a submarine. It's depressing, slow, you feel it when the Boot is on the bottom of the straits of gibraltar...
Yes to everyone noting Come and See. Should also note Schindler's List came out 1993 but in general war movies were still of the "throw your hands up and fall back deaths" compared to today when everything is pretty realistic.
I think something you said last episode and I wish you clarified it more because it's a harmful presumption is the idea that the "victors write history," which is just not true. If the victors wrote the history we never would have the "Lost Cause" or any of those southern textbook issues referenced at @6:30. Rather it's "writers write history," sometimes those writers are victors, sometimes they're losers, sometimes indifferent observers, sometimes passionate motivated observers, etc., it's not easily generalizable.