Lincoln Lives?

What if Lincoln had lived? Would history have been any different? Andrew Johnson wouldn’t become President? Lincoln would have never allowed the violence in the South to continue? Would he have used Federal force to quell the insurgency, enforce Emancipation and limited participation of the Southern Aristocracy in Union Governmental decisions? Reconstruction wouldn’t have become the farce that it was?

The entire country has become a victim of the “what ifs” of the 1800’s. History is what it is. People and politics are a product of their environment. Different takes and slants, further analysis and research, contrarian and contemporary, academic and political, radical and moderate, teacher and student.

Bummer enjoys being the student. He marvels in the mystery and mystique of a bygone era. Current events, especially politics haven’t changed, only the players and their agendas. Politicians abuse historical events and human suffering to further their own ambitions. The media harps on the short comings of the social conscience, it warps the concept of free speech and borders on propaganda.

Occasionally, this student is discouraged by the debate between scholars and historians. Bummer may not be sufficiently sophisticated in academic discourse, however it appears that mind-set can be easily swayed by dissenting opinion or political persuasion.

This “old guy” does not believe that art and entertainment shapes historic perspective in the electronic age. As a student of history, this “old guy” relished, not in the substance that was not correct, but in the fabric of the story that was being told.

Bummer believes that Simpson and Levin said it best;

Simpson said.

“Perhaps the whining of scholars has offended some folks, and I think the whining about the whining should have run its course. Now that everyone feels smug and warm about holding forth on the shortcomings of scholars, their egos, and so on, and about art for art’s sake (and entertainment), let’s not go too far. Ken Burns did that some time ago when he had no problem becoming “Homer with a camera.” Tell you what, Tony; I won’t disrespect your craft … so long as you don’t disrespect mine. Talk all you want about your film … but you’re fair game when you go beyond that to tell us what you think about Reconstruction. Try doing a film about the Memphis and New Orleans riots or the Colfax massacre first.” “Try reading this first.”

“(This is all your fault, Noma)”

Levin said,

“As historians we need to be much more sensitive to the artistic goals of filmmaker and the limitations that those who choose to focus on historical subjects face. In short, we need to stop critiquing filmmakers for something they are not. They are artists, not historians. Finally, with all of the focus on the content of the film the historical community is missing a unique opportunity to reflect on how people connect with their nation’s past.”

and

“What I am trying to get at is that to critique these films based solely on how well it matches up with the facts or current historiography is to miss the point of what filmmakers do.”

Bummer