Difference between revisions of "471A3--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Thursday"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
McPherson and Fahs discuss the relationship between Civil War memory and children through memorial services and literature. One thing that wasn't mentioned is the trend of naming children (and grandchildren) after Civil War figures. Has this been effective in creating "living monuments" as McPherson discusses? Is the name-legacy still prevalent (and if so, is it more for southern memory or northern)? Is it an effective method of instilling Civil War appreciation in descendants of veterans?- Aaskins | McPherson and Fahs discuss the relationship between Civil War memory and children through memorial services and literature. One thing that wasn't mentioned is the trend of naming children (and grandchildren) after Civil War figures. Has this been effective in creating "living monuments" as McPherson discusses? Is the name-legacy still prevalent (and if so, is it more for southern memory or northern)? Is it an effective method of instilling Civil War appreciation in descendants of veterans?- Aaskins | ||
| + | |||
| + | In Waugh’s article about Grant’s memoirs, she discusses how Grant was aiming to set the record straight and tell the world the “truth” about why the war was fought. Similarly, the South was attempting to do the same thing, but their “truth” was quite different. Why did Grant and his truth fall to the wayside when up against the South and their truth? - Angie | ||
| + | |||
| + | I found it interesting in Fahs article how the themes in children’s civil war stories changed from during the war to after the war. For example, during the war, wealth was portrayed as a negative characteristic, but afterwards it was a good characteristic. It’s not surprising that people’s priorities change as the country changes, but I do find it surprising that stories from the same author and about the same event can have such different themes in them. - Angie | ||
