Read Glassberg, Sense of History, chapter 4 (on Ken Burns’ The Civil War). Think about the techniques that Burns used to make his epic documentary. In class we will view portions of it and HBO’s documentary Unchained Memories, in which noted African American film celebrities read slave narratives collected by WPA workers in the 1930s.
an online community for his311/511 at cleveland state university
msouther
I remember the year 1990 vividly. We had just moved to Oxford, OH. My sister -in-law was staying at our home who night after night, after the evening news, would sit for hours engrossed in watching the spectacle of war on the television screen. It was not Ken Burns’ “The Civil War” that held her gaze, but the the first Gulf War and much of what was described in chapter four reminded me of the people I saw tuning in during prime time to watch Operation Desert Storm during that year.
Coverage of the modern war, just as “The Civill War” “….did not challenge most viewer’s understanding of the Civil War, or of history, but rather allowed them to confirm, on a more emotional level, what they already knew (pg. 108).” I was told that, when a group of people were watching at a friend’s house, someone brought up General Norman Schwartzkopf’s alleged responsibility for deaths by friendly fire in Vietnam. The negative response from almost everyone present was not because they questioned the person’s facts, but because the person had brought up unpleasant subject that had interfered with the enjoyment of the evenings entertainment.
Glassberg does an excellent job of analyzing “The Civil War” from the historians’ perceptions and of the perceptions of the more typical television viewer, but I am surprised that he did not mention current events that were taking place at the same time that may have influenced these perceptions.
In the introduction and conclusion of Sense of History, Glassberg asserts the importance of public history, as he has come to understand it. He argues that the general, non-academic, public often appreciate history only when it can be made personal to them. Non- professionals are most interested in history that provides them with a sense of identity, and connection to place. He seems to be asking his fellow historians to respect those desires, and keep them in mind when presenting history to the public. Yet, as he presents the results of his research into public letters responding to The Civil War, he appears to be chastising Ken Burns for pandering to those desires. If nothing else, this illustrates the incredibly complicated task that confronts public historians. If legitimate historical questions are raised, many non historians become confused and even threatened. The empirical, objective history espoused by the profession in the nineteenth century is the way that history is most often taught in public schools. Generations raised to believe that history is a chronological series of events, usually culminating in triumph of American ideals, are happy to step outside the main events and be able to connect with everyday people in the past. That elevates history out of the boring fact/date model they learned in school. However, they do not want those fact/dates being questioned or complicated by other views. Burns film, for all its flaws, satisfied its viewers by achieving connection to the past without challenging the prevalent narrative of the war.
Ken Burns used emotions in order to maintain the intrest of his audience. He showed real photographs from the civil war and also showed the battlefields at the time he made the documentary. It said in the reading that when he showed the current battlefields he even went at the same time the battle took place, as in the same time of year and the same time of day. I think that adds to the documentary by showing what the season was and what the environment might have looked like. I think that by including characters with names, he made it easier for people to make a connection. Also by using a narrator that kept things breif and easy to understand he helped keep that audience’s attention.