[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by dennisw

I believe the gist of the original thread was that there are some liberal pictures coming down the pipeline.

Originally Posted by dennisw

I'm not conflating liberalism with anything.

As you seem intent on showing who used which word first, please show where the word "liberal" appears in the OP.

Originally Posted by dennisw

How many quality movies have they made about our war efforts? How about zero! Coincidence? I think not. . . .If you do not think Hollywood monitors the politics of their stars, etc. you're kidding yourself. It's like the 30's and 40's all over again except there are no formal trials, and the political persuasion is blowing from a different direction.

You seem to be saying that the dearth of films you would like to see with messages you would like transmitted, coupled with the absence of evidence are proof of a conspiracy by which a monolithic entity ("Hollywood") suppresses producers, directors, and actors from working on projects that depict a right of center viewpoint. (Curiously, I don't recall any studio executives being on the conference calls I had with Tony Scott when we discussed the background research I did on his behalf for the film that would become Spy Game [2001]. From his tone it was clear he was going to make the movie he wanted about the CIA's John Downey, facts be damned.)

Originally Posted by dennisw

Siggy ...Please. Save us all the goobly gook....

I acknowledge your attempt at sarcasm. Lamentably, I bring a different set of sensibilities than you to what is known in some circles as "the power of culture debate."* In those circles, it pays to know the differences between the intellectual descendants of the Frankfurt School and the Neiman Marxists <<LINK>>.**
__________________________________________________ ________
* A serviceable overview of the parameters of this discussion can be found in Steven J. Ross, "Struggles for the Screen: Workers, Radicals, and the Political Uses of Silent Film," American Historical Review 96:2 (April 1991); George Lipsitz, "Listening to Learn and Learning to Listen: Popular Culture, Cultural Theory, and American Studies," American Quarterly 42:4 (December 1990); Lipsitz, "High Culture and Hierarchy," American Quarterly 43:3 (September 1991); Lawrence W. Levine, Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America, [The William E. Masey Sr. Lectures in the History of American Civilization, 1986.] (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990).

For better and for worse, military historians (both academic and those working in various capacities for the American government) have approached the power of culture debate with profound ambivalence. While this reluctance speaks to the utilitarian approach to the historiography of warfare that one can trace to Thucydides, their restraint may have had unfortunate unintended consequences in terms of the standing of the military historian in the Ivory Tower. For an example of this ambivalence, see John Shy, "The Cultural Approach to the History of War," Journal of Military History 57:5 [Special Issue: Proceedings of the Symposium on "The History of War as Part of General History" at the Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, New Jersey] (Oct., 1993): 13-26; and Charles Royster, Comment on John Shy, "The Cultural Approach to the History of War" and on Russell Weigley, "The American Military and the Principle of Civilian Control from McClellan to Powell," ibid.: 60-62. On the consequences of ambivalence, see John Lynn, "The Embattled Future of Academic Military History, Journal of Military History 61:4 (October, 1997): 777-789.

** According to a doctoral student of his, Lipsitz originated the term "Neiman Marxists." MOO, this winning quip almost absolves Lipsitz from overlooking the influence of Afro Cuban Jazz on the sensibilities of Californian musicians--especially those from East Los Angeles--during the 1960s and 1970s. YMMV.