Recently I saw the movie Lincoln, which I particularly liked for its unromantic view of 19th century life. People, sans blow-dried hair, inhabited dimly lit, dusty interiors. The realistic, if not heroic, picture of Lincoln as a backroom politician as well as an inspiring orator created a balanced view. The tumult in the Congress provided a welcome antidote to some current commentary that we have somehow "lost" the civil politics of yesteryear. The moviegoer was reminded of the horror of war.
However, there seemed to be a false note in the depiction of blacks. They were prominently displayed in top hats and dress coats at Lincoln's second inaugural. Yet in the picture above of that event, all distinguishable faces are white.
Likewise blacks were depicted in formal dress in Congressional galleries, which seems unlikely, although photography rarely depicted the dimly-lit 19th century interiors.
Soldiers of both races often fought in makeshift uniforms. The movie showed complete uniforms of the kind worn in photographic studios. The picture at right probably presents a more realistic view of black troops.
Even in current usage, minority servers in households and institutions are addressed by their first names while those served are often addressed as Mr. or Mrs. It seemed false to me that the Lincolns were depicted addressing black household servants with titles, rather than their first names.
Does it dishonor everybody to provide a realistic depiction of 19th century whites, while sugar-coating the depiction of blacks?
No comments:
Post a Comment