MovieChat Forums > Gods and Generals (2003) Discussion > Only thing they got right...

Only thing they got right...

posted 15 years ago by Cypher_Angel
11 replies | jump to latest

...was Jackson. I don't mean Stephen Lang's performance which I think has been overhyped; I found it, much like the movie as a whole, boring, stilted and pedantic (although given that was pretty much how Jackson's students described him, maybe Lang did a good job after all!). I meant in its portrayal of Jackson as bloodthirsty zealot.

Now unfortunately, the film makers and especially certain members of the audience seemed to relish this aspect. That is bad in itself, but I think it is a perfect illustration of the following point.

If a dark-skinned Muslim from Southwest Asia named Ahmed said God told him to kill American soldiers, he would be branded a terrorist, imprisoned indefinitely without charges or access to an attorney or the ability to call witnesses or present exculpatory evidence, tortured and possibly killed. If a blue-eyed Presbyterian from Virginia with a suitably Anglo-Saxon surname (let's say "Jackson") and a suitably biblical given name (oh, how about "Thomas") said God told him to kill American soldiers, thousands of grandmothers would hang his portrait over their mantle and he'd be getting high schools named after him for decades.

---------------------
If Adolph Hitler flew in today, you'd send a limousine anyway

[–] ethereal_lights 15 years ago

There is a whole lot of things I can say about this, but I'll just stick with the basics.

Your dark-skinned Muslim from Southeast Asia named Ahmed, with his God hearing tendencies, would have his own grandmothers (in his own part of the world) putting his picture on their wall. Well, maybe not a picture (idolatry being what it is). But he will be revered, nonetheless.

But since your foundation is faulty to begin with, there is no reason to go there.

Because in order to have anything worth discussing you would have to define 'terrorist', then you'd have to elaborate on "God told him". And I wouldn't mind some resources, either.

[–] Cypher_Angel 15 years ago

No, I don't think I need to define anything. If you'll notice, I at no point said that anyone was a terrorist, rather that such a person would be labeled so. In fact that's kind of the point, "terrorist" is so broad it can be applied to any number of enemies, and there are certainly those who love to use it. And that's SouthWEST Asia, by the way; SouthEAST Asia is Vietnam and Thailand and such. As for this person receiving divine messages, of course we only have their own word to go by. But the same can be said of the founders of all major religions so he'll have to wait in line. So my foundation is quite secure.

---------------------
If I am elected, Dib's head will be removed and filled with salted nuts!

[–] tralycr_c-1 15 years ago

No you're spot on with your analogy. I wouldn't call him a terrorist as much as I would a traitor though.

It amazes me how the same people who today won't shut up about how great the USA is have absolutely no problem with idolizing traitors who murdered thousands of American servicemen, or with a foreign, and defeated, nation's flag flying over their states.

There is a man...he travels fast...he has purpose...he brings violence and destruction.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] star_in_the_zenith_79 14 years ago

Murdering American servicemen?

Since when is defending your country in a war considered murder?

The South seceded from the Union and considered theirselves to be defending their homeland and their country. Now whether or not you think their seccession was justified is another issue I won't go into that, but your definition of murder is really twisted.

And the Muslim terrorist comparison is absurd on so many levels I wouldn't know where to begin.

Muslim terrorists murder people for not being Muslims, and most of them if they had their way nations they hate wouldn't even exist like Israel or the United States.

When did you see Robert E Lee or Stonewall Jackson murdering people for not being Christians?

They never even said they were fighting the war for independence because God told them to. Even Lee himself said only God would decide who won in the end.

[–] tralycr_c-1 14 years ago

Too long, didn't read. Next time just write "slavery rules!" and spare us the rest. That's about what it boils down to anyway.

But too address your first point, rebelling against the lawfully elected government because they might one day take away some rich hillbilly's right to own people is not defending your country. And spending four years killing and maiming American soldiers is not defending it either. It's treason, terrorism, and yes, murder.

There is a man...he travels fast...he has purpose...he brings violence and destruction.

[–] star_in_the_zenith_79 14 years ago

Well then maybe you should have read the whole thing before your rebuttal. Cause if you had you would have known that I said not one word about slavery, condoning it or otherwise.

And at the time the government of the United States was not lawful, According to the United States constitution, the Southern states had the right to secede from the Union, that right was violated but the Northern invasion. So technically the U.S government was not being lawful.

That the Civil War was fought for slavery is a myth taught in elementary schools because the truth is a little more complicated than they want to admit.

Slavery was the South's biggest mistake, but it would have ended soon anyway.

But that was not the reason the Civil War was fought, you do not charge a mile across a field into artillery fire like the Confederate soldiers at Gettysburg did to keep slaves.

[–] tralycr_c-1 14 years ago

Wow, that's even longer.

Well good luck with hating minorities and all that. I'm checking out of this backwater Alabama tea party.

There is a man...he travels fast...he has purpose...he brings violence and destruction.

[–] star_in_the_zenith_79 14 years ago

Another point on the slavery issue, I assume you did not watch the scenes in this movie with Stonewall Jackson and the African American cook named Jim. His views on slavery and the black race were clearly expressed in their conversations. And they were a far cry from how people usually associate Jackson and Lee with racism. So I'm assuming that you just believe those scenes were made up.

Admittedly, I'm not certain of the historical accuracy of those interactions between Jackson and the African American cook.

But what I am certain of is that white supremacist views were prevalent at the time. Not just limited to the South. It was wrong yes, but it was a wrong that was corrected, and a wrong that would have ended in the South as well.

[–] revsolly 14 years ago

There is a HUGE difference between your fictional man from Southwest Asia, and Stonewall Jackson.

Ahmed is coming to a country, not of his birth, and attacking citizens of that country for the purpose of serving his false idol.

Jackson was seeing his new nation (the Confederate States of America) being invaded by the United States. His purpose was to drive out the invaders. To do that requires killing enemy soldiers.

You will now label me as some southern, red-neck cracker. First off, I come from the Midwest. However, look at the actual facts of the causality of the War of Northern Aggression..

The U.S. Constitution allows for states to secede from the U.S. As a matter of fact, if we were to actually follow the U.S. Constitution, we would know that the federal government has WAY more power than it should be wielding. The Constitution holds states rights in higher stand than federal rights.

The Civil War was the result of Lincoln's fear that, had the CSA been allowed to succeed in its secession, the Republic of the United States would have failed. Therefore, he commanded the U.S. Army to put down what was mislabeled as a rebellion of the member staes of the CSA. Jackson and the Confederate army, were defending their home from invaders.

Obamunism! The death of the Republic! The price of Freedom is less than the price of Repression!

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]