Subject:      NEWS: Historians vs. Disney?



From: H-Civwar Co-moderator Peter Knupfer:



"Historians Declare War on Disney Theme Park," by Mike Feinsilber, AP

correspondent, adapted from _Topeka Capital-Journal_, Thursday May 12, 1994:



David McCullough, president of the Society of American Historians, has begun

a campaign to prevent the Walt Disney Co. from building a Civil War theme

park near Manassas Battlefield in Virginia.  At a press conference,

McCullough charged Disney with mounting a "blitzkrieg," a "sacrilege" that

would create "synthetic history by destroying real history."  According to

Feinsilber, McCullough claimed that no historian supports Disney's plans who

"is not on the payroll of the Disney company in one way or another."  The

article indicates that Eric Foner and James Oliver Horton have been hired by

Disney as consultants.



McCullough announced the creation of Project Historic America, a group of 30

historians and writers (including Shelby Foote, James McPherson, C. Vann

Woodward, and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.) that would try to persuade Disney to

go elsewhere.  The park would be constructed on farmland 35 miles west of

Washington, a few miles from the battlefield.  According to Feinsilber:

"McCullough said Disney's park would generate urban sprawl, ruining the

countryside that George Washington surveyed and endangering 16 Civil War

battlefields within an hour's drive.  'Would we allow the construction of an

amusement park at Normandy Beach?' he asked.  'In the name of jobs, would we

make splinters of Mount Vernon?'"



Virginia Gov. George Allen defended Disney's plans, arguing that history is

one of the best ways to attract tourists.  The state legislature has

appropriated $160 million toward the project.  The article contains no

comments from the Disney organization.



Any comments from H-CivWarriors on this?

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

Date:         Tue, 17 May 1994 14:53:53 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY: Historians vs. Disney (cont'd)



Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 13:29:19 -0400 (EDT)

From: "HAMBURGER, SUSAN" 



The story about Disney near Manassas broke just before we moved from

Virginia to Pennsylvania.  I was, and am, appalled at the typical Disney

underhandedness at optioning land through third parties to keep the prices

down (as they did in Orlando, Florida) and then announcing they would build

a history theme park.  As residents of Virginia, we were given no warning

nor choice; it became a fait accompli.  The argument of bringing in jobs is

a sham; look at the types of jobs them parks generate:  ticket takers,

groundskeepers, popcorn sellers--not exactly living wage positions in one

of the most expensive areas of Virginia.  Why do we need a Disneyfication

of history when we have the real thing throughout the state.  The money

George Allen and the legislature are offering to Disney and the concessions

they are making in terms of roads and infrastructure could better be spent

in other needed areas of the state's economy.  Why not support the existing

historic sites with those funds?  Provide jobs for historians, archivists,

archaeologists, museum curators, tour guides, etc. to preserve the history of

the Commonwealth rather than more fast-food minimum wage deadend drudgery?  I

opposed Disney in Virginia when I lived there and I oppose it now.



Sue Hamburger

Manuscripts Librarian

Special Collections Dept.

W342 Pattee Library

Pennsylvania State University

University Park, PA 16802

814/865-2067

e-mail:  sxh@psulias.psu.edu

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



Date:         Tue, 17 May 1994 16:50:33 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY: Historians vs. Disney



From: David.Bosse%um.cc.umich.edu@KSUVM.KSU.EDU

Date: Tue, 17 May 94 16:54:30 EDT



Members of this list who are intrigued by Peter Knupfer's posting on

the proposed Disney theme park near Manassas, VA should contact the

Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites (P.O. Box 1862

Fredericksburg, VA  22402, (703) 371-1860). Their newsletter, HALLOWED

GROUND, has followed the debated from the beginning. APCWS is a dynamic,

effective organization that, in my opinion, deserves the support of

Civil War enthusiasts and scholars.



David.Bosse@um.cc.umich.edu

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



Date:         Wed, 18 May 1994 09:36:34 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY: Historians vs. Disney



From:  Jean Spradlin-Miller, JMILLER%prime.mhsl.uab.edu@KSUVM.KSU.EDU

Date: 17 May 94 21:06:02 CDT



I, too, was appalled when I first heard of Disney's plans.  That area of

Virginia and Western Maryland is one of my favorite places.  Like McCullough,

all I could visualize was urban sprawl and all the headaches that go with it

. . . hotels and motels, fast-food restaurants, and all the tourist traps,

not to mention the god-awful traffic mess.  I do hope that those responsible

will reconsider their decision!



Jean Spradlin-Miller

jmiller@prime.mhsl.uab.edu

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



Date:         Wed, 18 May 1994 09:39:04 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY: Historians vs. Disney



From:  Graham Dozier, GrahamD477%aol.com@KSUVM.KSU.EDU

Date: Tue, 17 May 94 23:39:23 EDT



NO DISNEY -



I am a Virginia resident and am very upset with Governor Allen's position on

this issue.  He claims that history is one of Virginia's biggest tourist

draws.  I agree.  But the REAL history is what draws people, not some silly

plastic version of our past.  If people want to see a Civil War battlefield

then they should drive to an actual one.  As everyone knows there are a bunch

in Virginia.  If people want history they should go to Richmond, Petersburg,

or Williamsburg.  Why settle for fake images when the atmosphere of the state

breathes history.  Governor Allen sees jobs and votes that's all.  I am

ashamed of his misguided views.  Once a site is developed any historic value

it had is gone forever.  That's worth thinking about.



Graham Dozier



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



Date:         Wed, 18 May 1994 13:40:54 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY: Historians vs. Disney



Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 06:44:50 -0400 (EDT)

From: Tom Stuhlreyer 



I must also echo my opposition to the Disney project.  Having only lived

in the Washington area for 9 months I've thoroughly enjoyed all the

historic sites and battlefields in the area.  Unfortunately, one doesn't

have to look hard to see that the "normal" urban growth of the area has

been to the detriment of many sites, particularly around Manassas and

Fredericksburg.  This is perhaps unavoidable.  Disney is absolutely

avoidable.  Completely apart from the Disneyfied view of history they will

certainly foist on young and old alike, this would be a terrible mistake.



I for one am a bit turned off by the wax museums and abominable steel tower at

Gettysburg.  What would a Disney amusement park do to the area around

Haymarket and Manassas?  Go to Antietam, MD or Yorktown, VA to see the

contrast, beautiful country with well preserved battlefields.  If you have

access to it, the Washington Post Magazine had an interesting article on

the subject written by an American University professor (I'm sorry the name

escapes me and the paper is out with the trash).  Keep Mickey Mouse

history out of America's historic heartland!





Tom Stuhlreyer

Bowie, MD

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



Date:         Wed, 18 May 1994 13:45:41 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY: Historians vs. Disney



From: Jennifer Lyon,  jennie%paxman.safb.af.mil@KSUVM.KSU.EDU

Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 13:12:03 -0500 (CDT)



        I am against the park also.  Not only will it ruin the area (which is

already bad enough....With the number of other amusement type parks within

a relatively close drive (1-2 hours), there's no need for another one.



        Second, as others have posted, considering the expense to live in the

D.C. area, are low-paying (relatively speaking) part-time or seasonal jobs

worth it?  Yes, X number of jobs may be created, but what will be the real

impact to the local economy from those jobs.



        Enough Civil War and other Virginia history has gone by the wayside

because of "progress."  Look at the Richmond area...large chunks of the 7-days

battlefields (If I'm remembering correctly) are gone forever, destroyed by

shopping centers and subdivisions.  There is a limit to progress...



        Enough said...



--jennifer (jennie@paxman.safb.af.mil)

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



Date:         Wed, 18 May 1994 13:46:34 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY: Historians vs. Disney



From: Nancy Bainter, bainter%esdsdf.dnet.ge.com@KSUVM.KSU.EDU

Date: Wed, 18 May 94 13:33:02 EDT



My ancestors fought in the Civil War.  I cannot think of a more un-befitting

tribute to them than to trivialize their sacrifice by the creation of

a theme park!  Have Americans become so brain-dead that they can only

conceptualize the magnitude of the war through multi-media hype?  What

has happened to our imaginations?  Is it too much TV?  Not enough

reading?  Laziness?  God help us....



Nancy Bainter

bainter@esdsdf.dnet.ge.com

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



Date:         Thu, 19 May 1994 09:17:56 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY: Historians vs. Disney?



Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 21:19:04 -0400 (EDT)

From: peter c holloran 



To whom may we write about this? How can Civil War historians make an

effective protest? Do we all boycott Disney products? Any concrete

suggestions, please?

Peter Holloran

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



Date:         Thu, 19 May 1994 09:18:44 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY: Historians vs. Disney



Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 08:35:04 -0500 (EST)

From: ANDREW ROWDEN 



I must also voice my discontent to the Disney threat to Virginia and

American history.  It is bad enough to have a rather inaccuate, if not

twisted and reworked, showing of "history" from Hollywood.  I feel, in my

humble opinion, that history (especailly that of the American Civil War)

will be trivialized and will be reworked to fit what ever image Disney and its

advertisers desire.  It may become a situation of what ever sells will be

"history".  I have nightmares of Mickey and Donald wearing the blue and

grey.  Not only is this disrespectful for generations past but also a great

loss of historic sites and preservation to the present generation and to

those to come.  Once a historic site is lost, it is gone forever.



Where could one write to in order to show support in stopping the Mouse?



Andrew Rowden

arowden@crassus.onu.edu

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



Date:         Thu, 19 May 1994 09:21:10 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY: Historians vs. Disney?



Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 08:08:08 -0400 (EDT)

From: Jamie Adams 



Some unrelated observations for this Disney discussion.  As background

(and to help you determine my biases), I live and pay taxes in

Fairfax County, about 25 miles from the proposed site.  I am a Life

Member of the Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites

(APCWS) and I am neutral to mildly in favor of the Disney project for

reasons that have little to do with history or battlefield

preservation.



First, a minor quibble:



Jennifer Lyon (jennie%paxman.safb.af.mil@KSUVM.KSU.EDU) said on Wed,

18 May 1994



...With the number of other amusement type parks within

a relatively close drive (1-2 hours), there's no need for another one.



I don't think this statement is correct.  On a bad day, driving into

Washington is a two hour drive.  I don't know whether the error is

misinformation, a difference in the definition of "amusement type

parks" or the mistaken assumption that driving in this area for two

hours might actually cover 130 miles.  I can only recall one

amusement type park within two hours (but then I take my kids to

battlefields, anyway ).



Next:



The APCWS was mentioned previously.  They have been hired as short

term consultants by Disney for historical and preservation issues

dealing with the project.  As a result, the opponents of the project

are using phrases like "sold out" and "sleeping with the enemy" when

talking about the APCWS.  I disagree and think APCWS can retain its

integrity and independence, but readers of this list should know that

there is controversy concerning APCWS and Disney.



Finally:



At present there are plans to build a race track on the core of the

Brandy Station battlefield.  The plans have been approved by the

Culpeper County Board of Supervisors.  Many of the arguments against

Disney also apply at Brandy Station (which is within an hour's 

drive of Disney).  Unlike Disney, the racetrack will be built on a

battlefield.  Perhaps some of you who are opposed to Disney might be

willing to help preserve Brandy Station.  I'd start with the APCWS.



Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites

P.O. Box 1862

Fredericksburg, VA  22402

(703) 371-1860



Jamie Adams

jadams@cap.gwu.edu

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



Date:         Thu, 19 May 1994 11:18:49 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY: Historians vs. Disney



Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 10:16:52 -0500 (CDT)

From: Steve Peterson, SPETERSON%EXODUS.VALPO.EDU@KSUVM.KSU.EDU



I hope this is a helpful suggestion to Peter's request for an audience to his

Disney objections.  I know the news service carries a list titled

"rec.arts.disney" which many disney employees at various levels read

frequently.  They may cooperate with some contacts to lodge your complaints.



Steve Peterson



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

Date:         Thu, 19 May 1994 17:06:08 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY: Historians vs. Disney?



Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 12:07:33 -0400 (EDT)

From: "Roger W. Cole" 



As a Floridian who has visited the Disney complex on many occasions, and

whose wife was born in the community nearest the "World" (Kissimmee) many

years B.D. (Before Disney), I would like to share with Virginians and

historians alike some observations.  One need only examine the highway

corridors (US 92 and I-4) to understand what "development" means.  Masses

of resort hotels and motels are one thing; miles and miles of

bumper-to-bumper traffic rolling past endless strips of fast-food joints

and tacky souveneir shops is another.  It's your worst nightmare.  But

the effect on the economy is so massive that resistance is difficult to

mount.  It doesn't matter that many of the jobs generated are not exactly

space-age: the enormous revenues from resort, sales, and gasoline taxes

paid by tourists, to say northing of the money they spend, is too large

an infusion into an economy for state and local politicians to resist.

In a climate where a state will go out and spend tens of millions of

dollars and offer every inducement imaginable in the way of tax breaks to

lure, say, a Mercedes factory to a small rural town, can you imagine

anyone saying no to Disney?  Let's get real.

        On the history side of it, based upon what you see at Magic

Kingdom and Epcot, I think that we are less likely to see Mickey and

Donald running around as Minute Men and Redcoats, or Yankees and Rebels,

than we are to get something like the Hall of Presidents or Epcot's

similar saga, in which complex matters are trivialized through

superficial treatment, and all is swathed in a sort of sachariny

sentimentality.  I don't mean to sound unpatriotic, because I'm not, but

IMO, Disney (both now and in the past) would have done better to stick

with what he/it did best: charm us with Fantasia, Snow White, and Bambi,

and leave both history and other things to someone else.



Roger Cole

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



Date:         Fri, 20 May 1994 11:08:55 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY: Historians vs. Disney?



Date:         Thu, 19 May 94  13:19:55 EDT

From: Kurt Luginbihl 



As usual there are few really good people to write too.  Gov. Allen thinks

of the Disney project as a political and economic coup. I bet he calls it a

coop. :)   You can try Sens. Robb and Warner of VA. as well as the state

Reps. for that district not to mention the county commish, Chamber of Congress

and many more.   I am going to send every reply in this forum to Gov Allen.

I don't live in Virginia anymore but I pass through that part of NoVa 'bout

8 to 12 times a month.  I would hate to see it destroyed by "The Mousecapades"



Not many people remember what the Orlando area was like in the 60s or 50s.

It was small town and rural and had beautiful orange groves everywhere.  We

were visiting an Air Force Base South of there in the early 60s and I can

remember the orange frangrance wafting for an hour or so in the spring

evening heat.  That old Rambler station wagon never smelled so good!



Fight the good fight!



H. A. Kurt Luginbyhl

Scientific Computer Specialist

National Museum of Natural History

Washington D.C. 20560

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



Date:         Mon, 23 May 1994 14:34:04 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY:  Historians vs. Disney



Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 20:19:40 -0400

From: Donald Robert Shaffer 



Folks,



Having just finally finished grading my last bunch of final exams, having

grown up in Orange County, California (site of Disneyland), and now being a

resident of Maryland, I thought I'd put in my two cents on the Disney America

debate.



Like most of the people who have posted on this issue thus far, I have deep

reservations about an historical theme park in Northern Virginia.  Not just

because of the potential for ruining the area around the Bull Run battlefield

site, and because the potential for Disney being a poor choice to interpret

American history.



My big question is: who in Disney dreamed up the idea of a historical theme

park to begin with?  I really think this is just from a pratical standpoint

a real _turkey_, and I am wondering whether Disney is heading for the same

sort of fiasco with Disney America that it is currently experiencing with

EuroDisney near Paris, France.  Can anyone tell me how the Disney marketing

department came up with this idea?  Frankly, I can't see who is going to

shell out over $100 (which is what a day at any Disney theme park costs for

an average size family), to take in Disney's interpretation of American

history, no matter how interestingly and accurately presented.



Frankly, I wonder whether Governor Allen and all the other Virginia politicians

are embracing the Disney mystique without considering the feasibility of the

project.  Maybe, that is the argument we should be making with the politicians.

They may dismiss preservation and historical accuracy arguments, but I can't

see how they could dismiss an argument for sinking $160 million of Virginia

taxpayers money on an white elephant?



I eagerly await your thought on my thoughts ...



Cordially,

                Don Shaffer

                University of Maryland, College Park

                dshaffer@wam.umd.edu

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

Date:         Mon, 23 May 1994 14:37:42 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY: Historians vs. Disney? (LONG)



date: Sat, 21 May 1994 10:43:56 -0400 (EDT)

From: Jamie Adams 



Since I seem to be the closest thing to a proponent of Disney on this

list, I thought I'd add some more food for thought.



First, I believe that the land under consideration will be developed,

at the expense of the quality of life in Northern Virginia, regardless

of whether the Disney project gets built or not.  I believe that is

going to happen and that I am helpless to stop it.  My only option

would be to move, but that is only a temporary solution as anyone who

moved out to Haymarket 20 years ago will tell you.  Remember that the

Prince William County supervisors, within the last year, were actively

seeking both a Legoland Park (which went to California) and the new

football stadium for the Washington Redskins (which looks like it will

be in Maryland).



Given my pragmatism concerning development, Disney is the best proposal

that I have seen for that area.  It is so big that people have to deal

with the infrastructure questions up front.  Under the usual

development cycle around here, upgrades to Interstate 66 would not

occur until 20 years into the project and that would be after 15 years

of traffic jams.  Disney's buffer zones will make part of the

development less intense than it would be otherwise.  Unlike other

developers, Disney has indicated its willingness to work with the

National Park Service to ease the impact on the battlefield park.  It

is not clear, yet, whether Disney will operate at full capacity for 12

months of the year.  I could go on, but my point is that, from here,

Disney is the lesser of two evils.



If you don't live in PW County or Virginia you probably do not have

much you can do politically to stop Disney.  However since there will

be upgrades to a federal interstate, it is possible that pressure on

the federal government could be used to halt the project.  Northern

Virginia is not meeting federal air quality regulations and some pretty

drastic measures have been proposed to deal with that.  Under the

circumstances the federal response to any environmental impact

statements filed by Disney would be extremely important.  I mention

this because some people have asked what they can do to stop Disney.  I

seem to recall an armed conflict that came about in part because of

federal interference in the affairs of the states and so I trust that

those who advocate federal intervention will practice moderation .



It seems to me that the objections to Disney voiced here fall into two

broad categories - objection to the location and objection to the

content.  I have addressed many of the location issues above and I hope

that people who object to the location will continue to monitor and

oppose development near battlefields regardless of whether it is a

high profile project like Disney or just another local developer's

strip mall.



I do have several comments for people who object to the content of the

Disney project.  I assume that those people would object to the

project even if it were sited in a remote desert location that had been

fairly and honestly purchased from the Native American tribes that once

claimed the land.  Presumably the content would be the only issue in

that case .



It seems to me that judgements about the content might be premature. It

is almost like reviewing a book based upon a draft outline of the first

chapter (that was only written to obtain funding, anyway).  Disney has

lined up several good and well respected historians to provide advice.

If they actually get used for that purpose (as opposed to their

political use to splinter the opposition) then we will not have Mickey

and Goofy in Blue & Gray.



People who go to Seaworld know they are not seeing a realistic

portrayal of marine mammals.  People who go to Busch Gardens (another

VA amusement park that is much more than two hours drive from here )

know they are not seeing the real Europe.  People who see the animals

in the National Zoo know that, at best, they are getting just a glimpse

of the natural habitat.  Why is it that everyone who visits Disney will

be too dense to realize that they are not seeing "the real thing"?

Real history is better than ersatz history but that is better (at least

if the previously mentioned advisors do their jobs) than nothing.  I've

watched kids get an interest sparked in a subject from some

trivialized, inaccurate presentation.  Wouldn't it be possible that

some of people who saw Disney would hunger for the real thing?



The American Civil War has been a fruitful area for non-professional

and non-academic "historians".  This has led to much conflict between

the professionals on one side and the re-enactors, relic hunters and

ancestor worshippers (etc.) on the other.  The discussions tend to

center around the quality of the work and the qualifications of the

worker, i.e. it is not good research unless it is published (or

supervised) by someone with a doctoral degree, in a peer reviewed

journal.  To the extent that this stereotype of a professional is

accurate, it seems obvious why a professional would object to Disney.

I won't accuse anyone on this list of fitting that (deliberately

negative) stereotype but it does raise the issue that objection to

Disney is grounded in professional elitism and self-interest.



If you have made it this far, thank you.  I have been deliberately

provocative in response to "moderated boredom" but I do not intend any

personal attacks.  If you feel you have been so attacked please accept

my apology in advance.  These are my opinions today, and I reserve the

right to change them in the future .



Jamie Adams

jadams@cap.gwu.edu

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



Date:         Mon, 23 May 1994 14:49:30 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY: Historians vs. Disney?



From: H-Civwar Co-moderator Peter Knupfer



I appreciate the many and varied postings about this issue.  My initial

posting about it was adapted from a brief AP report that did not provide

details about Disney's plans or the debate in Virginia about the project's

environmental impact (the latter being a strong subtext in our discussions).

  I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that Disney will have a number of questions

to answer about urban sprawl, given federal regulations and that the park

would be located in an area densely populated with federal workers fleeing

the DC area.



I am curious about your opinions on the ways that Disney would be handling

historical issues in its park.  Some of the replies to the list have

directly addressed that question, and I'd like to see more about it.  I

don't know if Disney plans a Bull Run River Ride, and even if it did, I

doubt that people's understanding of what happened at Bull Run would be

piqued by such an attraction.  I suspect that it wouldn't and that Disney

wouldn't be trying to.  On the other hand, a series of displays and

attractions directly purporting to be instructive about Manassas or the

Northern Virginia theater would be a subject of concern to anyone who loves

history and wants to see it treated accurately.  One remembers the great

dioramas painted in the 1880s and 90s about the Civil War, that became

traveling attractions for many years (and which are now themselves

considered rare historical artifacts).



This post is not in support of the project -- but I am wondering what you

have to say about the ways that a popular audience might indeed be informed

about Civil War history in this context.  The National Park Service is under

a great resource strain, and if it wants to keep precious battlefields in a

frozen state into the foreseeable future, it might very well end up

supporting developments like this that drain some of its visitors into

places that are built to handle the crowds.  What do you think?



Peter Knupfer

H-Civwar Co-moderator

pknupfer@ksu.ksu.edu

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



Date:         Mon, 23 May 1994 14:35:12 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY: Historians vs. Disney?



Date: Fri, 20 May 94 12:09:41 CDT

From: epperson%math.uah.edu@KSUVM.KSU.EDU (James F. Epperson) (Mathematical

Sciences Dept., Univ. of Alabama-Huntsville)



I've avoided contributing to the Disney discussion because I don't

really have strong opinons on the matter.  I don't live in Virginia

and I am not at all familiar with the details of the proposed park.



That last phrase is, I think, the key issue.  Any proposed endeavor can

be done well (the Marshall Plan, certain brands of bourbon) or it can

be done poorly (Edwin Bearss's Vicksburg trilogy, certain other brands of

bourbon).  I don't know enough about what Disney proposes to do, and how

they propose to do it, to evaluate the matter.  I can conceive a

presentation in which tourists are entertained and informed, in a somewhat

superficial manner, about aspects of American history, and then are

encouraged or inspired  to go to the appropriate sites to learn and

see more.  On the other hand, I can also conceive of a presentation

in which the tourists leave thinking they have seen The Truth and

deciding there is no need to go visit Gettysburg or Valley Forge or

Monticello.



I suspect Roger Cole is right in his description of what we will get.  I

wish Disney would be more specific in the details.  Maybe they have

and I just haven't seen it.



Jim Epperson

epperson@math.uah.edu

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



Date:         Tue, 24 May 1994 13:21:49 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY: Historians vs. Disney?



Date:         Mon, 23 May 94  16:33:45 EST

From: Robert Spore 

Subject:      Disney's America



Jamie Adams made several excellent points in favor of the Disney

project. Although I have misgivings over Disney's presentation of

history, Disney may well be the best development option for the area. As

the growth in Northern Virginia progresses west along I-66, development

in the Haymarket area is inevitable. The commuter rail line already

links Fredericksburg and Manassas with D.C. Are endless residential

developments and shopping malls prefereable to Disney? The Disney

presentations to the Virginia General Assembly were certainly lacking in

details of how history will be presented. The scale model of the park

also lacked detail. Prominent features were the Monitor and the Virginia

maneuvering in a lagoon, and a large roller coaster in the center of the

park. It is certainly promising that Disney is seeking the advice of the

APCWS. The Disney introduction to history could spark renewed interest

in American history. Remember Davy Crockett, Johnny Tremain, Zorro,

Swamp Fox, and many other television and motion picture successes?

Continuing arguments in the Richmond newspaper has already led to

charges of "elitism" from the Disney supporters (including the

governor).



Robert B. Spore               Virginia Community College System

TELEPHONE: 804-225-2532                       FAX: 804-225-2531

         Internet Address:  SOSPORR@VCCSCENT.BITNET

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



Date:         Tue, 24 May 1994 13:23:07 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY: Historians vs. Disney?



From: "JOHN URSCHEL, WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY"



Subject: MANASSAS VS. THE MOUSE



        Thanks to Jamie Adams for writing the message I intended to write and

 for doing a much better job than I would have.

        Since 1985, when a trip to Gettysburg sparked my CW interest, I have

 spent every vacation visiting or looking for CW sites. We drove 700+ miles

 last weekend to visit Chickamauga/Chattanooga again. (Now that I have proven

 myself certifiable, my points.)



        Disney assures the preservation of Manassas National Battlefield Park.

 Isn't NoVa Community College right next door to Henry Hill already? Stopping

 Disney won't stop the sprawl.

        But Disney (and the Disney millions & millions) will have a vested

 interest in Manassas NBP. They will become the leading opponent of any

 threat to the park. (Sudley Springs Ford? That would be under parking

 lot #12.)



         And frankly, I don't care how Disney interprets Manassas/Bull Run.

 Let Disney make their millions selling miniature Springfields and forage

 caps to America's toddlers. Maybe they'll grow up caring whether Manassas

 survives or not. Had someone made history entertaining to the masses in the

 past maybe we could visit Nashville, Franklin, etc. today.



        Isn't Columbia's Dr. Eric Foner a consultant? Will he sell out real

 history for a few Disney dollars?



        I'd rather see our noted historians asking Disney

 how they can help make it better rather than fighting a losing battle

 against pseudo-history. (It's everywhere if you hadn't noticed.)



        This is HISTORY + MONEY. Think of the possibilities.



                                                John Urschel

                                                Wright State U.

                                                Fairborn, Ohio

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



Date:         Tue, 24 May 1994 13:24:23 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY: Historians vs. Disney?



Date: Mon, 23 May 1994 16:44:24 -0400 (EDT)

From: "HAMBURGER, SUSAN" 



One of the problems I have with Disney doing history in Virginia and the

blend of reality and fantasy is their presentation of history.  We do know

the difference between seeing zoo animals and marine mammals in habitats

and recognizing that this is not their natural habitat.  When Disney

fabricates Main Street U.S.A., it is not the way it was, but how they'd

like us to think it was, so clean and pretty without the manure and garbage

of reality.  I remember seeing Disney movies as a child in the 1950s and

thought that their version of "The Alamo" and "Davy Crockett" was

historical truth.  Now that I know better, I don't want to see any more

generations fed the cleaned up Disney version of history, especially

plunked down in the midst of the real thing.



People go to Disney World in Orlando, hopefully knowing it's all

Fantasyland, and a big amusement park.  I worry about blurring the line

between "what is real and what is not," as Bob Dylan once said.  Why would

anyone want to spend $100 at Disney Virginia to see history they could

spend from nothing to $1-3 for the real thing at Manassas, Fredericksburg,

The Wilderness, and New Market, to name a few?  Despite the distance from

Northern Virginia (NOVA) to Kings Dominion 20 miles north of Richmond, and

Busch Gardens and Water Country U.S.A. outside Williamsburg, do we really

NEED another amusement/theme park in Virginia?



        Just as Legoland and the football stadium went elsewhere, why

settle for Disney as the least objectionable?  Why accept development of

any kind as inevitable?  Why give millions of state dollars to a private

corporation?  If Disney does build in NOVA, why not make them foot the

entire bill?  I also agree with another poster to this list, who in Disney

thinks this will be a successful enterprise coming on the heels of the

EuroDisney fiasco?  Too many people blindly jump on the economic

development/jobs bandwagon before seeing what swamp it is sinking into.



One way we might discourage Disney Virginia is to write to the company

boycotting their products such as their films, books, toys, and theme parks

.  Hit them economically and they may think twice about alienating their

customers with the money which makes them so successful.



Sue Hamburger

Manuscripts Librarian

Pennsylvania State University

sxh@psulias.psu.edu

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



Date:         Tue, 24 May 1994 16:15:18 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY: Historians vs. Disney?



Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 14:29:22 -0400

From: ae941%yfn.ysu.edu@KSUVM.KSU.EDU (P. W. Carlton)



For Jamie and Peter, in particular.



I appreciated your somewhat more temperate remarks on the Disney Theme Park

issue. Most of the others seemed a bit hysterical to me. The comments about

"good history" vs. "bad history" are interesting. However, the painting of the

Disney Corporation as "bad guys" seems a bit overdrawn. I heard a presentation

by one of their folks a few weeks ago. The planning seemed carefully done. The

exhibits (attractions) were quite acceptable. The Civil War portion of the park

represents only a small percentage of the entire layout. The approach they are

taking, that is seeking the advice of trained historians, offers the promise of

a decent, if superficial (who defines?) portrayal. The physical layout is both

attractive and sensitive to the environment. The site is sufficiently remote

from various highways that it is likely they will be able to avoid presenting

a "carnival-like atmosphere" to passersby on Rt. 66 (the major freeway going

from East to West. I was impressed by the sensitivity of the official doing the

presentation and am convinced that they will do their best to avoid "definling

(once more) "defiling" the landscape. So far as the opposition is concerned,

those of us who have homes in the area have found it amusing to watch the

"horse set" and "those who oppose any change whatever as a matter of

principle" carrying out

their usual activities.  They are  a fascinating group. In sum, there is

likelihood that Disney will have a positive impact in the area, both

economically and

educationally. While no one suggests that "true history" will be purveyed, it

is well within reason to suggest that the young, in particular, may find their

imaginations piqued by what is likely to be a high quality attraction. Disney

plans, incidentally, to have the National Park Service set up a booth on the

grounds to advise tourists on how to visit historic sites in the vicinity.

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



Date:         Tue, 24 May 1994 16:16:04 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY: Historians vs. Disney?



Date: Tue, 24 May 94 14:58:42 EDT

From: "Chris Willis" 



Having lived in Gettysburg, PA for a number of years while in college, I

feel I can add to this.  Anyone who has visited these hallowed grounds

lately knows that there are already Disney-esque qualities involved in

the tourist trade around these places.  There is the Cyclorama "In

stereo Sound", there is the Wax Museum, there is the Civil War Dinner

Theatre, there is the Cassette Auto Tour, there are guides and busses

(single and Double Decker also with "stereo sound"), and resturants

that serve Civil War Food.  Add a few rides and you have yourself a

theme park.



I personally would like to see the Battlefield Societies pull away from

such tourist trade, but since we go with the money, I don't think that

Disney would be such a bad thing.  I just can't look at this particular

issue from a studied acedemic standpoint because I have been there

and seen what is going on.  The children (and fathers) in Union and

Confederate hats carrying "cap" muskets.



Chris Willis

Gettysburg College Class of '93

cwillis@bfc.com

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



Date:         Tue, 24 May 1994 16:16:56 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY: Historians vs. Disney?



Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 15:50:58 -0400 (EDT)

From: "Roger W. Cole" 



>  Disney may well be the best development option for the area. As

>  Are endless residential

> developments and shopping malls prefereable to Disney?



> Robert B. Spore               Virginia Community College System

>

As I remarked in an earlier posting, our experience here in Florida is

that you will get BOTH, and the former more quickly because of the

latter.  My other point was that, given the economic impact, Disney is

probably irresistable if truly determined, as it appears to be.  As

someone else remarked in another posting, the better course may be one of

working to assure that Disney directs its considerable resources to

insuring that it builds the best quality product (given its limitations)

that can be expected.



Roger Cole

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



Date:         Wed, 25 May 1994 13:02:15 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY: Historians vs. Disney?



Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 17:02:51 -0600 (MDT)

From: Steve Tilson 



OK, OK, I can't resist it any more, I'm going to put in my humble two

cents worth on Manassas vs. the Mouse.  I will be brief.

-Yes, my gorge rises at the thought of Disney-version Bull Run.  However,

as anybody knows who has seen northern Virginia in the last decade or two,

it's a little late to be upset about the "spoiling" of any pristine

historical sites in that area.  It also looks to be equally late to be

upset about this anyway, you can bet that if money has already been set

aside, this is as close to the proverbial "done deal" as you can get.

-On a lighter note, I somehow can't help but smile a bit at the

(virtual) spectacle of all us good Civil Warriors up in arms at the

continuing triumph of the imaginary rodent who may just be the perfect

personification of Yankee capitalism, after all.

Steve Tilson

tilsons@csn.org

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



Date:         Wed, 25 May 1994 13:03:30 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY: Historians vs. Disney?



Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 19:40:24 -0400 (EDT)

From: peter c holloran 



Could someone post names and addresses for letters complaining about the

potential damage to historic sites by Disney?

Peter Holloran

New England Historical Association

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



Date:         Wed, 25 May 1994 13:05:06 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY: Historians vs. Disney?



Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 1:19:14 -0500 (CDT)

From: Bryan P. Howard,  BPH3213%ZEUS.TAMU.EDU@KSUVM.KSU.EDU

Subject: History, Disney, and Reality....



   I have been watching the comments fly about how Disney is perceived to

plan to present history, when I see little fact to back up the accusations.

Perhaps we should learn more of the plan before launching a full scale assault?

  I have also noted much concern about presenting "reality". One recent comment

struck a cord. "When Disney fabricates Main Street U.S.A., it is not the way

it was but how they'd like us to think it was, so clean and pretty without

the manure and garbage of reality" (Sue Hamburger 5-24-94). Where I might ask

do we EVER present history as reality? I have worked as a Park Ranger at

several Civil War battlefields in Virginia. All are now clean and neat, the

grass nicely mowed, the grounds cared for as best as possible. Where is the

mud, the stumps from cutting breastworks, the stench of rotting flesh after

the battle? No, this is not reality.

  I earned a graduate degree in Historical Archaeology at the College of

William and Mary in Williamsburg.  I wonder how those on this list feel about

Colonial Williamsburg? Personally, I loved it there, but do they come close

to historical reality? No. It is no more than a glorified "Main Street U.S.A."

  Historical reality is not possible. We simply cannot recapture the entire

experience/environment of the past. With this in mind, maybe we should work

with projects that attempt to present history to the "masses", not against

them. I've seen the development in northern Virginia. If it isn't Disney, it

WILL be a mini-mall or 7-11 sooner or later.

  Williamsburg is a good effort at present the past to the present. It is also

a major tourist attraction. Perhgaps people WILL flock to a theme park which

offers history which is deemed acceptable to most historians, as I presume

Colonial Williamsburg to be.  No, Disney won't have the restoration potential

using an actual site that Williamsburg (or Jamestown Settlement or Plymouth

Plantaion) has, but it CAN possibly be a tool to spark real interest in

history, as long as historians work with Disney, and don't shun them.

    Bryan P. Howard   Dept. of Anthropology, Texas A&M University

    BPH3213@VENUS.TAMU.EDU

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



Date:         Wed, 25 May 1994 14:42:30 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY: Historians vs. Disney?



Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 14:56:45 -0400 (EDT)

From: "HAMBURGER, SUSAN" 



I certainly don't expect Disney or any battlefield parks to provide the

rotting flesh, mud, and stench so we can approximate the experience.

However, there are ways of presenting history and historical sites that

don't leave people thinking that paved streets and brightly-painted houses

were the norm.  A good example of capturing the feel is the Johnstown Flood

NHP in Pennsylvania.  The site of the dam break cannot convey the horror of

what happened downstream but the film, using historical footage and

reenactment, coupled with the visitor's center 3D tangle of tree roots,

roofs, and bodies comes close.



I enjoy Williamsburg but am well aware that many of the buildings are

re-creations and relocations, Rockefeller's 1930s theme park sans rides.

History is not perfect.  I just don't buy into the fatalism that Disney is

a fait accompli or else we'll get strip shopping centers.  Leave Virginia

some dignity and integrity.  As a New Jersey native, I deplore the

Jerseyfication of other states.



As a cynic, I question whether Disney will voluntarily point tourists

toward the real thing outside the park's boundaries.  Will they present

history in a way that will pique interest or will the theme park become

just another raft ride?  I could go on all afternoon but I'll spare y'all

the diatribe.  I'm tired of the crass commercialism and unbelievable money

grubbing in the name of private property, profit motive, and progress.  I'm

off to Canada for the weekend.



Sue Hamburger

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



Date:         Thu, 26 May 1994 11:15:38 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY: Disney vs. Historians?



Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 08:19:37 -0400 (EDT)

From: Jamie Adams 



On Tue, 24 May 1994 19:40:24, peter c holloran

 said:



Could someone post names and addresses for letters complaining about the

potential damage to historic sites by Disney?

Peter Holloran

New England Historical Association



-----



I'm tempted to cynically reply that no such letters are necessary because no

such sites have been identified .



I heard a news report (May 25) that said archeologists hired by Disney had

identified between 10 and 20 potential historical sites on the property.  As

I recall, one was a graveyard dating from the 1800's, one related to 18th.

century Europeans and the remainder predated European settlement in the

area.  The significance of these sites is currently unclear, but note that

none of them seem to have any Civil War significance.  I expect the plan

will be to glean as much information from these sites as possible before

they are paved over.  The graveyard, of course, will be relocated. If any of

these sites are truly significant, I expect that Disney could incorporate

the site into the park itself.



Please note that, to the best of my knowledge, these sites are currently

unprotected by Federal or Virginia law.  At best, they are protected by the

purchase option agreement between Disney and the landowner.  If Disney fails

to exercise its option to purchase the property and all rights revert to the

current owner, the owner can, with impunity, destroy the site.  There are

several notorious cases of property owners in the Fredericksburg and

Richmond areas deliberately destroying Civil War era entrenchments on their

property because the land owners were afraid that the entrenchments would

impair their ability to sell the property to a developer.  Til Hazel (local

developer) was still building (hence "destroying") on the Manassas property

("taken" by an act of Congress) up until the day that the law took effect.

Those acts of historical vandalism were and still are, legal.  If anyone on

this list feels strongly enough about historic sites on (emphasis "on") the

Disney property to use that as an objection to Disney then I beg you to

monitor the sites whether Disney is built or not.



Jamie Adams

jadams@cap.gwu.edu

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

Date:         Tue, 31 May 1994 09:41:20 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      FYI: "Disney's America" Addresses



Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 09:41:38 -0400 (EDT)

From: Jamie Adams 



Disney's America

14540 John Marshall Highway

Gainesville, VA  22065



Piedmont Environmental Council

P.O. Box 460

Warrenton, VA  22186



Protect Historic America

1211-504 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20036



Civil War News

Route 1, Box 36

Tunbridge, VT  05077



The above addresses were gleaned from the June 1994 issue of Civil War News,

a publication that I highly recommend for its coverage of contemporary Civil

War issues such as preservation, archaeology, reenacting, movies, television

and books.  Subscriptions are $24/year.



The Disney address is for Disney's local presence.  The Piedmont

Environmental Council (PEC) is currently the most organized and vocal

opponent of Disney.  They are more concerned with environmental and quality

of life issues than with history.  The cynics have observed that the quality

of life that PEC is most concerned with is that quality enjoyed by the rich

and reclusive residents of Virginia's Horse Country.  Protect Historic

America is the group of historians  (James McPherson, C. Vann Woodward, et.

al.) that have organized to protect the entire Piedmont region of Northern

Virginia, especially 22 Civil War battlefields.  I hope they remember Brandy

Station.





Jamie Adams

jadams@cap.gwu.edu

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



Date:         Tue, 31 May 1994 09:43:06 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      FYI: "Disney's America" Discussion on H-AMSTDY



Moderator's Note (PBK): H-Civwarriors interested in extended discussion of

this issue might wish to subscribe to H-Amstdy@uicvm.uic.edu, where this

issue has heated up the satellites for the past week or so.

---------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:         Tue, 31 May 1994 10:33:53 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY: Historians vs. Disney?



Date: Sat, 28 May 94 21:21:23 EDT

From: Dale Floyd, dfloyd%tmn.com@KSUVM.KSU.EDU (Dale Floyd)



In reply to John Urshel:



I definitely agree with you.  I was the historian on the staff of the

Civil War Sites Advisory Commission and I feel that by fighting

Disney, people are defusing the need to fight to save the

battlefields.  Brandy Station, Malvern Hill, Spring Hill and

others are in imminent danger.  Lets put our energies toward

saving these battlefields.



Please be aware, these are my opinions only and not those of any

Government agency!





Dale E. Floyd

tmn.com

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



Date:         Tue, 31 May 1994 10:43:01 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      QUERY: "Gettysburg" & Disney



From: "Brady, Mark" 



In honor of Memorial Day, I finally rented Gettysburg.  I thought is was a

good movie, my only complaint would have been I thought they should have

shown more of Hancock's ride infront of his troops.  I had always thought

that was a dramatic prelude to Pickett's charge.  However, it brought up two

questions that I wanted to see if anyone else had any thoughts about.



1)  Disney vs. History:  I watched the movie with my girlfriend, who is well

educated (BSEE).  She was willing to see it (she had not heard of the

battle) and initially thought the Civil War was "in the 1800s or the early

1900s."  Ironically, her birthday is July 3rd.  Needless to say, she is

learning a lot of history from me, (I am going to take her to the actual

site in November) and I am learning about electricity and how it works.  But

to my thought, Disney has the advantage over those historians that oppose

them in that the general public (no one on this list) has no real feel for

history and so will side with Disney most of the time.  I am one of those

who felt that Disney already won the popular war for Haymarket.   Have other

people encountered the same attitudes; either not knowing history, or not

caring about it?  Or is this lack of knowledge common to Americans in

general, as I have heard from both Europeans and Japanese?



2) Chamberlin:  Is there an autobiography of Joshua Chamberlin in print?  If

not, is there a biography that someone could recommend.  Given that he was a

professor at Bowdoin, he must have written something about his experiences

to get tenure after the war :-).



Thanks



Mark Brady

MBRADY@MSMAIL.HIS.TCH.TMC.EDU

Disclaimer:

The opinions in this message are strictly those of the author and do not

belong to Texas Children's Hospital, St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital, the

Texas Heart Institute or any other sane entity.



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

Moderator's Footnote (PBK): For the past month or so, H-Amstdy has been

discussing "historical ignorance" and the "decline" of historical knowledge

-- interested subscribers might want to check that list's logs for more

comments on this subject.

----------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:         Tue, 31 May 1994 13:50:17 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY: Historians vs. Disney?



Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 13:27:39 -0500 (CDT)

From: Steve Peterson, SPETERSON%EXODUS.VALPO.EDU@KSUVM.KSU.EDU



I happen to be a Disney stockholder and reviewed the 1993 annual report for the

comments Eisner made about the Disney Virginia project.  I will reproduce them

here for your interpretations.



"  Disney announced plans to develop a unique and historically detailed new,

Disney's America, to be located in Prince William County, Virginia, west of

Washington, D.C.

   Chairman Michael Eisner said the new park will celebrate the nation's

richness of diversity, spirit and innovation.  The new park, to be located on

1200 acres of a 3000 acre site, will differentiate itself from others in

subject matter and presentation, focusing on important historical events or

eras in the nation's past.  The park is envisioned as an ideal complement to

the iternerary of guests visiting Washington's museums, monuments and national

treasures.

   While the long-term plans are not final, Disney proposes to build

residences, hotels, a golf course and mixed-use development on that portion of

the land not devoted to park use.  These projected facilities, like the park,

would be surrounded by greenbelts and open spaces for the benefit of the

environment and neighbors."

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



Date:         Tue, 31 May 1994 14:28:39 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      Mickey and Stonewall



   FYI:  The June 6, 1994, issue of _Time_ magazine (the D-Day special

issue) includes an essay (last page of issue) by Charles Krauthammer on

the proposed Disney theme park near Manassas.  The author sympathizes

somewhat with the fear of urban sprawl but takes a dimmer view of other

bases of opposition to the park.  Krauthammer's bottom line to historians:

"Lighten up, guys."

   I'm not sure I can agree with the essayist, but his views are worth

reading -- if only to see what an intelligent person not connected to

either group (pro or anti) is thinking.

   My own view (shared by countless others, I'm sure) is that the

urban-sprawl issue is sufficient in itself to oppose Disney's project.

The sprawl will inevitably do violence to the Manassas site.



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

 =        Richard Lowe        =

 =    Univ. of North Texas    =

 =    fd78@jove.acs.unt.edu   =

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

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



Date:         Wed, 1 Jun 1994 12:25:07 -0500

Sender:       Civil War History discussion list 

Subject:      REPLY: Historians vs. Disney?



From: "Brady, Mark" 

Subject: RE: Mickey and Stonewall

Date: Wed, 01 Jun 94 08:23:00 PDT



Richard Lowe wrote:



"My own view (shared by countless others, I'm sure) is that the urban-sprawl

issue is sufficient in itself to oppose Disney's project.  The sprawl will

inevitably do violence to the Manassas site."



While urban sprawl is an issue, I think that it is a minor one.  I used to

live about 15minutes from Manassas, last time I drove from my parents house

to the Battlefield, it took about 45 minutes.  My parents didn't move, its

just that things in Northern Virginia have gotten so crowded.  Manassas

battlefield is completely surrounded by housing developments and edge

cities.  The rest of the parks in the area are also overrun by local

developers, Wilderness comes to mind immediately.  I think that the Disney

project would have very little impact on the Manassas battlefields because

the area is already so overdeveloped and expensive.  That's one of the

reasons that I live in Houston, I pay for my house what I paid for my

efficiency in Washington.



I think that the real issue here is who controls the interpretation of

history and for what ends.  I think that the professional historians feel,

and rightly so, that Disney will take events and actions that have an almost

sacred aura and trivialize the sacrifices made.  My concern is we will see a

Hogan's Heroes type of presentation of the Civil War (Gettysburg: The

Comedy), so that it will have minimal meaning to the general public and no

moral value beyond light entertainment.  That seems to be Disney's approach

to history (I remember that they were roundly criticized for their nature

films, especially the bit about lemmings jumping into the sea).   Often bad

history makes good entertainment.  Even if the park was moved to some other

"undeveloped" place in the United States, my fears about their treatment of

history would remain the same.



My 2 cents.



Mark Brady

MBRADY@MSMAIL.HIS.TCH.TMC.EDU

Disclaimer:

The opinions in this message are strictly those of the author and do not

belong to Texas Children's Hospital, St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital, the

Texas Heart Institute or any other sane entity.

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

Date: Tue, 07 Jun 1994 19:19:07 -0500 (CDT)

From: Nathan K. Moran, NKMORAN%MEMSTVX1.bitnet@KSUVM.KSU.EDU



I have been reviewing my messages for the past month and noticed some

complaint on the moderation of this list as being boring.  I feel that

the moderation has kept the list informative and free of clutter. Keep

up the good work.



On another note I've also seen the debate on Disney's invasion of

Northern Virginia.  My summer job is working as a Public Historian

and can see the conflict between education of the public and telling

the truth in regards to history.  Many of the individuals who visit

my place of work have little idea of the civil war and what occurred.

I find that I have to tailor my presentations to my audience to reach

them regardless of educational level.  This is a very complex task

even for a trained historian.  The peril that Disney must be aware of

is that their company's goal of entertainment conflicts with the ideal

of educating the public.



Nathan K. Moran

Fort Pillow State Historic Area - Park Historian

University of Memphis - Part-time Instructor and Doctoral Student

nkmoran@msuvx1.memphis.edu

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



Date:         Wed, 8 Jun 1994 11:29:38 -0500

From:         H-Civwar Co-moderator Peter Knupfer 

Subject:      REPLY: Historians vs. Disney?



From: John Sloan, JohnS426%aol.com@KSUVM.KSU.EDU

Date: Wed, 08 Jun 94 11:01:15 EDT



HI all,

Short comment on Nathan Moran's excellent note about Disney etc. It is

unfortunate that entertainment and education all too often are allowed to be

in conflict.  In my opinion it is also unfortunate but true that when such

conflict exists it is entertainment that is bound to win. Our efforts as

individuals interested in promoting the appreciation of real as opposed to

synthetic history (whether we are professionals or amateurs in the field) has

to be to remove or at least reduce this conflict as much as possible. It will

do no good to assume a superior attitude to the Disney's of the world and

look down our noses on their productions. Better to remain actively engaged

in improving the educational content of entertainment and the entertainment

content of education. Just a personal opinion, but one resulting not only

from experience as a teacher but more directly as a parent trying to instill

some appreciation for history in my own children and grand children.



John Sloan