No moves made about George Washington?

Scaeva

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
5,592
#31
*If* there was going to be a movie about Washington I would imagine the focus would be on a single event in his life, either during his military career or his presidency, as you can't cram an entire life into a 2 hour portrayal on film and keep it coherent or interesting. An example would be the recent movie about Lincoln, which focused solely on his efforts to get the 13th Amendment passed.
 
Likes: Niobe
Jan 2018
390
Sturgeon Lake Mn.
#32
For Christ's sake, the main cause of the American rebellion against Britain was financial, not this freedom nonsense they teach in grade school. The main purpose of politics is cutting up the pie.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Hoosierhiver
Jan 2018
390
Sturgeon Lake Mn.
#33
Yes. His motivation can only be known to him. I will assume that the father of the nation was a patriot and not some greedy opportunist with little to no interest in the cause until real evidence shows otherwise. Anything else is simply revisionism in my mind.
You imply revisionism is wrong?

I don't think Hoosier is saying Washington was driven solely by his financial interests but that they were involved. Seems reasonable to me.
 
Feb 2019
655
Pennsylvania, US
#34
I dont know if it's all about anti-American sentiment... I think what I learned about Washington in school practically canonized the man is a sort of state of perpetual perfection - to the point where much of his real life (as a farmer, as a man who at times had a temper, etc) was simply never talked about. He no longer seemed a real man with real strengths and real weaknesses, etc. Some of the desire to recognize the possible foibles of George Washington is perhaps more about restoring a realistic (human, fallible, relatable) picture of him. I find that I struggle to keep myself from idealizing him too much, which I think happens on the whole, to make him a sort of bland, saintly figurehead... in reality he was an amazing individual... plus he is much more extraordinary as a human (having made good choices) than as a sort of American demigod (exempt from human flaws).
 
Likes: Zip

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,113
US
#35
You imply revisionism is wrong?

I don't think Hoosier is saying Washington was driven solely by his financial interests but that they were involved. Seems reasonable to me.
I'll let Hoosier words speak for himself. Let's not do a revisionism on his posts.

And, yes, I am implying revisionism is wrong.
re·vi·sion·ism
a policy of revision or modification, especially of Marxism on evolutionary socialist (rather than revolutionary) or pluralist principles.

Historical revisionism - Wikipedia
From the article, " In historiography, the term historical revisionism identifies the re-interpretation of the historical record. It usually means challenging the orthodox (established, accepted or traditional) views held by professional scholars about a historical event, introducing contrary evidence, or reinterpreting the motivations and decisions of the people involved. The revision of the historical record can reflect new discoveries of fact, evidence, and interpretation, which then provokes a revised history. In dramatic cases, revisionism involves a reversal of older moral judgments.
At a basic level, legitimate historical revisionism is a common and not especially controversial process of developing and refining the writing of history. Much more controversial is the reversal of moral findings, in which what had been considered to be positive forces are depicted as being negative."

So, as I have posted, if there is evidence, show it. What Hoosier stated in response, "His motives can really only be known to him ." Doesn't sound factual to me. Does it t you. This sounds more like moral revisionism. You believe what you want. I'll stick with the facts as I am not a big fan of fairy tales.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2019
361
New Jersey
#36
I dont know if it's all about anti-American sentiment... I think what I learned about Washington in school practically canonized the man is a sort of state of perpetual perfection - to the point where much of his real life (as a farmer, as a man who at times had a temper, etc) was simply never talked about. He no longer seemed a real man with real strengths and real weaknesses, etc. Some of the desire to recognize the possible foibles of George Washington is perhaps more about restoring a realistic (human, fallible, relatable) picture of him. I find that I struggle to keep myself from idealizing him too much, which I think happens on the whole, to make him a sort of bland, saintly figurehead... in reality he was an amazing individual... plus he is much more extraordinary as a human (having made good choices) than as a sort of American demigod (exempt from human flaws).
I liked the portrait of Washington in David Hackett Fisher's Washington's Crossing. He showed the flaws of the man without diminishing from his amazing achievements on the banks of the Delaware. I would highly recommend that book.

Otherwise, I did watch a film about Washington once, called The Crossing (IIRC), but it was actually rather bland.
 
Likes: Rodger

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,981
Caribbean
#37
Last edited:

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,113
US
#38
I dont know if it's all about anti-American sentiment... I think what I learned about Washington in school practically canonized the man is a sort of state of perpetual perfection - to the point where much of his real life (as a farmer, as a man who at times had a temper, etc) was simply never talked about. He no longer seemed a real man with real strengths and real weaknesses, etc. Some of the desire to recognize the possible foibles of George Washington is perhaps more about restoring a realistic (human, fallible, relatable) picture of him. I find that I struggle to keep myself from idealizing him too much, which I think happens on the whole, to make him a sort of bland, saintly figurehead... in reality he was an amazing individual... plus he is much more extraordinary as a human (having made good choices) than as a sort of American demigod (exempt from human flaws).
But this discussion is because a poster stated they could not make a movie about Washington because of his foibles, with which I have disagreed. So, I say make it. I am not afraid of the truth and most people interested in the man would not be either. However, to imply something that is not factual based on one's opinion or desired view of reality is revisionism. Tell me what is historical about that? As far as the myth, what great person hasn't been?
 
Last edited:

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,981
Caribbean
#39
It'd be hard to make a movie about Washington , keep it historically accurate and not offend people. Making a historically accurate movie abut Washington would have to include the fact he owned over 100 slaves, fought for the British early in his life, made several serious military blunders and became a patriot only after George 3rd made the Proclamation of 1763 which ruined his idea of surveying and selling Ohio for profit. I think it would be too much for some people and would be widely criticized as slanderous.
It's possible parts of the the movie might offend almost everyone. However, Hollywood may have offended the occasional person before.
 

Similar History Discussions