"The Outlaw Josie Wales", "Segregation Forever" and Asa Carter. Just a taste of the American History

[miletus12]

I always hated "The Outlaw Josie Wales."  I lived in the Jayhawk State and learned all about Bleeding Kansas and slavocrat aggression against Free-Soilers. 

Atun Shei Films debunks and appropriately shows the background of such Hollywood tripe.




To the extent that Clint Eastwood may have "glorified" the man, Asa Carter's, work, I think it is most regrettable.  The main character was somewhat patterned after Jesse James in part. Jesse James, for those who may not be familiar, was an American civil war era terrorist who participated in such atrocities as the Lawrence, Kansas massacre. He may have been a post war silver-shirt. He was most definitely a post war bank robber, a highway man, a possible rapist, a proven racist, a murderer many times over, and was deservedly shot down by the Fords, who he double-crossed in the splitting of loot and spoils when he hired them into his gang of cutthroats.
           
Hollywood, as part of the ongoing Lost Cause Myth, glorified that brigand and those like him.  "The Outlaw Josie Wales" simply continues the false historical narrative.  

The thing, that makes "The Outlaw: Josie Wales" so powerful is that it may be a thickly disguised soul journey of the evil man who wrote it. Asa Carter. (See video.)

If one wants to understand Americans, this is a good glimpse into the mirror.

[miletus12]

The psychopath, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson.



The data about Jackson.

a. Prominent local west Virginian.
b. Martinet as to military manners.
c. Enigma as to personality.
d. Excellent tactician though he may be, there was a certain lack of strategic acumen in the man.
e. Erwin Rommel type before there was an Erwin Rommel? This may not be true. More like John Huss as to religious insanity and warlike acumen.
f. Definite Slavocrat.
g. Calvinist religious attitude.

If one were to find an era compeer to match him, one might try the war criminal, Nathan Bedford Forrest. Jackson, like him, was opportunistic, didactic, an incompetent teacher, bullied and a bully, self-taught rather than educated, obviously crazy, very neurotic, a hypochondriac, and socially inept, somewhat "kinky", and very emotionally unstable.

=====================================================================

Jackson's reputation was "manufactured" in the Confederate press and amplified by the Union press. The episodes, which are manufactured to flesh out Jackson's life, such as Chancellorsville, have to be teased out by tertiary sources and inferred. The idea, that Lee's victory at Chancellorsville, was actually Jackson's only makes sense, when one examines Lee's otherwise utterly incompetent generalship in attack and defense.

Such is the tangled book on the madman, Jackson.

[oscssw]

Mar 1, 2022 22:37:20 GMT miletus12 said:

I always hated "The Outlaw Josie Wales."  I lived in the Jayhawk State and learned all about Bleeding Kansas and slavocrat aggression against Free-Soilers. 

Atun Shei Films debunks and appropriately shows the background of such Hollywood tripe.




To the extent that Clint Eastwood may have "glorified" the man, Asa Carter's, work, I think it is most regrettable.  The main character was somewhat patterned after Jesse James in part. Jesse James, for those who may not be familiar, was an American civil war era terrorist who participated in such atrocities as the Lawrence, Kansas massacre. He may have been a post war silver-shirt. He was most definitely a post war bank robber, a highway man, a possible rapist, a proven racist, a murderer many times over, and was deservedly shot down by the Fords, who he double-crossed in the splitting of loot and spoils when he hired them into his gang of cutthroats.
           
Hollywood, as part of the ongoing Lost Cause Myth, glorified that brigand and those like him.  "The Outlaw Josie Wales" simply continues the false historical narrative.  

The thing, that makes "The Outlaw: Josie Wales" so powerful is that it may be a thickly disguised soul journey of the evil man who wrote it. Asa Carter. (See video.)

If one wants to understand Americans, this is a good glimpse into the mirror.

Wow, that was a powerful eye opener. 

I like Atun Shei, very much like "The Outlaw: Josie Wales" and found Gods and Generals a real boring waste of my time.

On the other hand "The Killer Angels" is one of my very favorite Civil war movies.   IMO, OJW  is a great western and Eastwood did a magnificent job in front and and in back of the camera.   I wonder how I will feel the next time I watch that movie and watch it I will.

I'm an old man and I have met many, many men.  Some were real bastards.  A few were outstandingly magnificent men.

Most were pretty average doing the best they could, once they became adults  ,  to lead reasonably decent lives.  There were some, myself included, that were once violent, brutal men because the situation called for it and we were determined to survive.  I salve my conscience with the thought, at that time, I was insane, and that being a Christian I believe God forgives all.

So , unlike you miletus12, I have some sympathy for them as I do old Josie and Asa.

I told you this before and I'll say it again because we are all friends here on Lordroel's site and I truly wish you well.

In the words of Andy Tanner/Powers Booth  "All that hate is going to burn you up". 

[miletus12]

Mar 2, 2022 21:54:15 GMT oscssw said:

So , unlike you miletus12, I have some sympathy for them as I do old Josie and Asa.

I reserve "hate" for very special occasions.

What I mean, is

Asa Earl Carter is one of many in the United States who has pretended to have Native ancestry. Miguel Douglas writes that "many Americans who wish to be Native American only do so due to the benefits they believe Native Americans receive [... and] for many claiming Native ancestry, there is no genuine attempt to learn more about the cultural, spiritual, or traditional practices that accompany that ancestry—merely saying they are part Native is sufficient enough to them." At the end of the day, the fact that this hoax persisted for so long has more to do with white people's willingness and desire to believe it rather than the lack of evidence against a racist man. This is the messed up true story behind Klansman Asa Earl Carter's giant hoax.

Read More: www.grunge.com/331876/the-messed-up-true-story-behind-klansman-asa-earl-carters-giant-hoax/?utm_campaign=clip

The thing is that when people false flag themselves to "game the system" for social prestige and un-merited economic or prestige opportunities, they practice a form of racism.

It is bad enough, that Asa Carter encouraged terrorism and racism, but then he turned his hand to using his talents to bamboozle and lie to some people who philosophically should have opposed and vetted his work.

Forrest Carter was the bestselling author of "The Education of Little Tree: A True Story," a literary phenomenon that was published 25 years ago this fall and is credited by many as the book that touched off the boom in what is still referred to in publishing as "Native American Lit." Carter also wrote another famous book, "The Rebel Outlaw Josey Wales," whose eponymous ex-Confederate superhero was played by Clint Eastwood in the most influential western since "The Searchers."

Just to be clear: "The Outlaw: Josey Wales" much like D.W. Griffith's "The Birth of a Nation", or Lenie Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" are exemplary forms of cinema where auteur technique shows a brilliant cognition of how to sell emotion and catharsis to mass audiences. In the Eastwood movie, there is some Hatfield / McCoy motivational truth in why the main character portrayed became a Border Ruffian, a terrorist and a murderer: but one is so wrapped up in his (Eastwood's) directorial point of view, that one tends to forget, that his character he portrays, is an actual criminal, terrorist, and a traitor, which is what the character actually is.

Historical verisimilitude and Hollywood like the Fauxcohantases and Cocheese-cheaters do not usually meet at the horizon line of truth. I think a better movie for "Confederate points of view" is "The Searchers". There one can defend as reasonable: "A man (or woman) is good for only one oath at a time." as "Ethan Edwards" states.

Among First Nations and many other Americans, oath breaking and the "confidence game" rank down there with treachery.

===========================================================================

Violence.

I have never killed. But I have had to be violent. It seems strange in my case, but it happened. Necessity is not a moral excuse for it. I have reconciled that if I had not been violent, greater harm would have been done. It is not "Christian", but it is the way I have come to terms with the evil involved. And I do believe in evil and that it must be stopped.

[oscssw]

So be it miletus12. We will just have to civilly agree to disagree. No hard feelings. PAX

[lordroel]

Schould I be worried with this thread.

[miletus12]

Mar 3, 2022 13:25:55 GMT lordroel said:

Schould I be worried with this thread.

The heart of the thread is to debunk myths, Americans have about themselves and ideas others have about Americans and their Civil War history, specifically as applied by propagandists and popular entertainment mediums.

Sometimes crosstalk about subjects such as the American Civil War depicted in film or popular history, leads to quite spirited debate.



In that video above, there is an independent analysis about American Civil War generals as discussed by another American historian as he plays both of the roles of Billy Yank and Johnny Reb.

Notice: that the viewpoints expressed with spirit are in that form of character play acting and extreme satire? This format in the Artun Shei Films was adopted to teach a certain viewpoint and to get the volatile subject matter past the Youtube censors.

One can learn a lot about propaganda, viewpoint, and audience manipulation in these examples.

The point I am trying to drive home, is to be extremely skeptical of a viewpoint, any viewpoint and to vet assumptions and beliefs on the basis of verified facts or events.

Hence the title of this thread.

[oscssw]

Watched "The Outlaw: Josie Wales"last night. I enjoyed it...... immensely.
I will be watching "The Searchers" tonight. I like a good classic western and those two fit the bill along with Red River, Lonesome Dove, Open Range, Both versions of True Grit, Willie Nelson's Red Headed Stranger and his Stage Coach.
with ast

Willie Nelson as Doc Holliday
Kris Kristofferson as Ringo / Ringo Kid / Bill Williams
Johnny Cash as Marshal Curly Wilcox
Waylon Jennings as Hatfield (Gambler)
John Schneider as Buck (Overland Stage Driver)
Elizabeth Ashley as Dallas
Anthony Newley as Trevor Peacock (Old John's Whiskey Salesman)
Tony Franciosa as Henry Gatewood (Tonto Banker)
Merritt Butrick as Lieutenant Blanchard
Mary Crosby as Mrs. Lucy Mallory
June Carter Cash as Mrs. Pickett
Jessi Colter as Martha

But that's just me.

I'm very unwoke it's nothing but a con job.
I don't confuse entertainment with moral philosophy
I don't get my history from Movies.
I don't base my politics on what actors and other totally clueless Hollywood types tell me about anything.
I'm an Ugly American, an old school American Patriot)and damn proud of it
I am one of trump's "Deplorables" and damn proud of I helped keep Hillary out of the White House.
I am a sorry excuse for a Christian but I am still a Christian and plan to die as one.
I do not apologize for Western civilization. We did a hell of a lot more good than harm. That's the test.
That said, I do believe in the US constitution and have taken blood oath "to defend it against all enemies Foreign and DOMESTIC". That goes for the Bill of rights and I value the 1st amendment as much as I do the Second.

That means you folks have the "God Given right" to speak your minds. I have never advocated gagging anyone.
I play by Lordroels rules here and will continue to be respectful of the ideas of others here.
No skin off my nose.

I detest Commercials, Network TV & most cable, the current crop of Woke and extremely unfunny rabid feminist anger posing as sitcoms.

"That's all I got for today...Go away now!

[American hist]

Unlike the outlaw, Jose wales Gods and generals actually have the historical accuracy primarily correct, and atun films is the same person who onley wants confederates to be portrayed as bad guys in films. AS for the outlaw Josie wales, it's fiction, yet there are parallels with Bushwhacker Bill Wilson.

any film that deviates from the historical record isn't nearly as good once someone finds out the historical facts Historical fiction often can create certain liberties that make it more appropriate for a filmmaker to stretch the nartive to his level

WHile Atuns films can be educational and are often entertaining, they are also misleading
as he produces his own propaganda through his movies. The kens burn documentary has been dubbed lost cause material. Still, regardless of any narrative, there is much anyone can do in any film to present the facts while having a convenient narrative to support someone's historical baise. If we had to compare an amateur historian Shelby foot's credentials with atuns film people, I think there should be more respect for Shelby foots credentials if one had to judge. However, history and science, for that matter, aren't about judging others based on how brilliant or how trained someone is based on schooling its about facts. Yet our current society would probably sooner pick atun to the right a historical documentary than watch a pro confederate narrative of Shelby's foot. WE shouldn't just dismiss a work just because it is pro confederate; the 1860 southerners are nowhere near the egivlaint of German troops.

Historians and, idealistically, people should hear both points of view from each side of history. The film the free state of johns and glory is both worth watching yet it actually isn't correct to say those films get historical accuracy better than gods and generals. Unfortunately, Gods and Generals have too much going on for it to be filmed. Originally gods and generals was supposed to be a mini-series which it should have been to cover the vast area it was going through. It would have been most ideal if the creators could have made a film out of the mini-series. THat way the work could be clearer that while it was pro confederate it also had pro-union scenes as well as just neutrality.

while people are so critical of the lost cause narrative our society is very guilty of demonizing the south and not properly understanding 19th century
culture Even Volloging through history the professor "who grew up in Yankee town" always had a pro northern pro-union anti-slavery basis. Yet despite his biases he has pointed out there where some fallacies or misconceptions in the Youtubers videos

Missouri had wanted to stay neutral from the American civil war and so did many fellow Americans which I condemn the 7 cotton states for attacking fort Sumter by President Jefferson Davis's orders. apparently, Davis believed the north would just back down,but he miscalculated.


as for June carter someone can still be a very bad person and produce an entertaining or cultural significant piece of art Though I have not read the book

[American hist]

You might like alternative history.com as well because you can have both accounts. Anyway, here is my point most Americans didn't grow up with the lost cause; perspective instead, they had a biased union perspective of American history. However, our current society is keen on doing away with those southern symbols to the degree we can't even play with confederate toy soldiers or watch a film that doesn't portray the confederates as bad guys anymore www.journalofthecivilwarera.org/2020/08/the-lost-cause-in-the-childrens-room-toys-and-memory/ when is it all going to stop?

historynewsnetwork.org/article/135526 the check mate Lincoln knight video guy is tough on Gods in generals for not mentioning slavery causing the civil war. However, during this generation, there would be a more than a sizable minority who would like to see the CSA be portrayed as resembling nazie soldiers and might wish the audience to find simlaertys to the ww2 American soldier and the union army or the American civil war period. Of course, atun sees it this way I had just gone to the Missouri saint Louis civil war museum which had a reputation of being unbiased and they said some of the greatest problems is getting young people interested in the american civil war and to avoid baises.

www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-we-need-new-civil-war-documentary-180971996/

The certain narrative of course is meant for a very specific point of view to the level it is politized. It probably wasn't particularly wise to have a amature historian rather than a properly trained scholar to monopolize the show,but public-funded documentary have their partisan biases unfortunately and there where loads of people who weren't trained as historians on those kinds of documentaries

The atun while he insists he is dedicated to the truth and isn't unbiased this is clearly not the case. Yet let it be known in my preparation tor my timelines I would gladly hear out a very biased even politized perspective of American history. At the same time, I would engage in semi-historical or historical fiction cultural works such as gone with the wind,the red badge of courage and other romanticized works. WHen I was a child, I saw Gone with the wind, but I didn't think it was a perfect depiction of slavery ,as i experienced some of the horrors of it at the lincoln museum and a was sympathetic to the union side of restoring the union and freeing the slaves

Yet to me the best history as a reader will be academic history books and accounts of the people who served in the American civil war, not Hollywood movies,novels, especially revisionist ones, but sometimes novels can give someone a different perspective of history or a narrative in general

To my surprise, the silent film the general was more accurate than I gave the film credit for as I assumed The film was just a fun fictional movie in a historical time. Tto me, the best civil war min series, films etc portray both sides particularly when families and friends are torn part.

[American hist]

There are unhealthy myths about the lost cause that needs to be addressed by historians and have been as there were fabrications, misunderstandings, romanticism, and overephism in the lost cause phsudu history known as the lost cause.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy

However, much of the lost cause narrative was the South's reaction to the reconstruction policy. It could be said that soldiers who didn't know why they fought for the confederacy side during the civil war sure did after the conflict was over.


BY 1864 I think it was militarily impossible for the South to be able to win the American against the union invader. Still, the South could achieve a more lenient reconstruction under a meclian peace, union democrat victory. So there came the point in the American civil war where it was a lost and glorious cause for the soldiers who signed up defending their homeland, state, and country were to them; the war was about state rights or anything they wanted to make out to be. www.nps.gov/apco/planyourvisit/upload/Why-Confederates-Fought-Final.pdf
By the end of the war and in the checkmate lincoln videos series, johnny rebs begins to see slavery as wrong, just as this symbolizes how some southern were starting to feel the mood. So some of the lost cause is ideology and propaganda to what confederates said at the time.

Slavery was so embedded in the southern system it transformed the south in ways the southerners didn't even notice, but that also included a great dependence on the system with its destruction would cause the south to be destroyed as they were after the civil war under Union occupation. By that point the south was under union northern subjugation and some people during the Civil War very much figured that would happen.

let us look at some of the points of the lost cause using
encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/lost-cause-the/

By the end of the war, when the north was using more ruthless measures, the CSA soldier defending their homeland looked like outright saints than Sherman's soldiers plundering and burning Atlantia.

Women always have to suffer significantly in the war, and Jefferson Davis over-relied on people's devotion to the CSA, particularly the civilian population.

www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/lost-cause-definition-and-origins

If southerners had the opportunity, they would ravage the north, but it would be shorter, and the southerners preferred a defensive strategy.Plus a CSA army on northern soil gives a message about how you like it being invaded and being the victims of total war. It was stupid for the south to start the war by attacking fort sumter ,but it can be changed in a alternative history at least just not reality

The massive amount of union resources and workforce went a long way to help the union cause, but it wasn't the only factor why the north won.
www.bevinalexander.com/books/how-the-south-could-have-won-intro.htm
Indeed the South lost because of mistakes on the battlefield, as shown by the historians' works. I would argue the main reason why the South lost was the fault of its leadership by Jefferson Davis. Unlike Lincoln and the northern generals, the South couldn't afford to make mistakes, especially on the battlefield. Scholars have proved that the civil war outcome wasn't a forgone conclusion just as the people thought at the time, but even with Davis's incompetence, the confederates could have won on the battlefield of battle. It is, however, up to debate how or when the South could have turned the tide from a southern victory into a permanent union defeat. Perhaps ironically, the belief the south couldn't possibly win the civil war I found it more commonly discussed and believed by northerners than among southerners.

While I am more moderate on my southern sympathies, then I hope people perceive I have dealt with the extremes of neo-confederate lost causers as stereotyped in the atun videos and they are exhausting to people be with. However, I have dealt with the other extreme opposite, so let's seek balance in all things.

Even among academic circles in which the north generally has a majority or even a monopoly in power, so let us not pretend they haven't laid misconceptions or baises after all victories; write the history books. Losers can occasionally write history books as like in the instances of the lost cause, but it can sometimes be helpful to look at amateur historians' works or historians who feel indifferent at picking sides during the American civil war, as all historians are meant not to have baises. Unfortunately, some historians feel it necessary to either give disclaimers or their norther baises rebeccafisher.omeka.net/exhibits/show/inductive-reasoning-21st-centu/public-history---amateur-histo/pros-and-cons-of-opening-histo

I think a film shouldn't be denounced because it's pro-CSA; instead, for its inaccuracies, there have been historical films that will still be criticized not for the historical record but for their narrative. For example, films often show the glory of war and not the negatives. Also, movies have refused to add some unbelievable parts in the historical story but were left out because they believed the audience believed the actual events or story were just Hollywood fiction.

I think a magnificent civil war CSA victory alternative history should deal with the presidency as it would have a massive ripple effect and could bring the confederacy advantages to a reality

[American hist]

It is dangerous for people especially Americans to treat a hobbyist named Dillion as some great historian, when in reality he isn’t even a amaturehistorian let alone a certified historian. While I am neither a historian nor a historical reenactor that doesn’t mean someone can't contribute to one’s knowledge or understanding of American History when they are not academically trained. However I think the checkmate Lincoln knight gigs are kinda annoying while the character Johnny Reb he’s quite character, but every once in a while, don’t people get tired of him, nor does he ever say anything intelligent. Instead, he is the laughingstock as a stereotype Southerners as evil, stupid, ignorant at least Confederates.

Misunderstanding of tariffs
I do however repeat myself I do like his videos if there is a historian fact checking the content even if he is biasedly pro Union. A discussion here for something about Andersonville would have been better discuss just not about something off topic about confederate war crimes on the previous post about CSA leadership. The YouTuber honestly sounds stupid and naive because he explains as child, he seems to get a lot of his civil war historical information from movies which seems to have made him a lost causer. I admit there was a period in my life where I kind of was a lost causer , but I didn’t believe in all of it and the ones who are dubbed lost causers don’t always believe in all of the lost cause movement. I’m not going to dispute if historian Woodrow Wilson had put lies in history books, but U.S. history was also in its infancy. It perhaps can be confirmed that Woodrow Wilson was if not one of the worst historians was certainly not a good one, but it is to be remembered back then and even now, they don’t give PhD’s out like lollipops 🍭. It could perhaps also be true perhaps once history book is tainted but there is also some truth or historical reality in it. The problem with veterans writing of their historical memories is those memories can be shaped for the current attitude. Soldiers don’t always put their memories in diaries they often have to look back how they felt.

In gods and generals, it is the movie that shows the Confederates from their point of view, but it also puts their heroes in a great light such as Robert e Lee and Stonewall Jackson and they were both known for being good generals. All good generals make mistakes end it is true Robert Lee’s strategy that was actually similar to Cornwall strategy in the American revolution fighting every needless battle didn’t work out. It’s ironic how Stonewall Jackson strategy was completely different he wanted to avoid the strength of the union army and go through the weak spots. However, while this discussion is about wild West in the lost cars. It is America’s mythology of the wild West so it is an interesting blend to add the American Civil War in the wild West the loss cosmetology with a wild West mythology one could say.

[American hist]

My boss said you don’t have to agree with different historians' opinions, but you should respect them. To be in the profession of history, it is your job to get other people particularly young people interested in history. It is our job not to tell a particular narrative rather have the visitor or viewer learn about history and letting the facts he made in his mind not our mind. It is important for us to here with different historians have to say including loss Causers. The boss was very correct there isn’t so much absolutes truths in history historians will often say things that have different truths or they’re not fully correct nor incorrect necessarily. Sometimes history is just a mere retelling a tale through different perspectives,view's and even conclusions sometimes using the same data. While I really dislike turtle doves books I can respect The concept of his civil war alternative history books.

I respect the point of view of Checkmate Lincoln knight video’s if a historian is commenting on the videos. It can be helpful to have a probably left or a liberal leaning yankee historical reenactor provide his perspective of American history. As human beings we can’t change what had happened in history but we can during a alternative history and even learn from those historical mistakes.

Of course if Gods and Generals was told from a pro Union northern perspective and still had even more inaccuracies the public and maybe even historians wouldn’t care. However allow me to get straight to the point teaching isn’t without bias so watch out for it. However sometimes biases can be good as long as they’re not dominant as it provides different perspectives and even entertainment such as the checkmate Lincoln videos. However in history we should always try to be as neutral as possible let the viewer not be fooled and think that this Dylan guy isn’t without extreme bias. I saw the extended edition for the first of gods and generals and while it was a pro confederate in General , in had prounion scenes and neutrality in it and it was entertaining to me.

Yeah his YouTube series checkmate Lincoln knight calls the film not only confederate propaganda but argues that it’s politicized,but to say Ron Maxwell was politicizing the film as a falsehood ended and it’s a distortion to current events of the 90s and early 2000s………,

The outlaw Josie Wales is a western film unique when Western genres from losing that steam so they had to produce a unique western film. I honestly thought the outlaw Josie Wales was kind of boring then again I was hoping something more historically accurate so I naturally enjoy gods and generals more.

Some people make comparisons if there was a pro-Nazi film glorifying the Holocaust vs gods and generals showing what it shows and I don’t think those are very good comparisons that at least understand their point.

Suppose if we made a World War II German film that glorified Rommel and emphasize the eastern front more I would so watch it provided it was historically accurate.Valkery arguably could be argued promoting a myth as it shows some of the German army weren’t bad people.

Couldn’t someone argue that Schindler‘s list perhaps showed the Holocaust at its best? The entire point of the movie correct me if I’m wrong is about a man who saves so many people from the death camps .

[simon darkshade]

That’s really a bit all over the place. The original notion - that we should respect the opinions of different historians - is a bit of a motherhood statement and at its heart incorrect. Rather, we should respect those who earn it through their scholarship and works. Not just because of the likes of David Irving, but because no one should get a free pass.

Sure, read what different types have to say, but don’t extend that principle to the long obsolete Lost Cause without a darn good argument in their favour.

[American hist]

The lost cause while it may probably belong for more reference material depending on what sources and what they are being used for. Even in the checkmate Lincolnite videos I feel atun debunks falicess not so much from contemporary historians, but myths that evolved after the csa even existed in my opinion. Many of the myths are from Hollywood or just popular culture


The war between the states is one example of a term used a lot after the civil war by lost causers like during the 1940s but was much less commonly used during the period known as the American civil war. I plan to use some of the lost cause at a appropriate level for the confederate minstry of propaganda.

Though I understand just because something is labeld lost cause doesn't mean it is lost cause though that doesn't mean it isn't biasedly pro confederate or southern. slate.com/culture/2017/08/visiting-dolly-partons-dinner-show-dixie-stampede.html

dixie stampede is meant for entertainment as its a musical show while you eat not a history lesson so lets be careful on all sides