It's all too much to quote!
I'm glad for the conversation. I'm going to try not to repeat myself too much, because I think a lot of sub-topics being argued are already sub-topics I've addressed.
In general, I'm seeing an argument that since Keaton didn't make an overtly/blatantly pro-Confederacy movie that it's somehow neutral or non-offensive on the subject. That is wrong. Once you include the context and set the protagonist as a Confederate soldier, do so because they are more sympathetic, and portray the lead sympathetically, the damage has been done. He ends getting the girl and a commission with the Confederate army as his happy ending, all the worse.
A thought experiment: The remaining Confederacy supporters could very much watch this film and cheer on the ending as a victory for the Lost Cause. There is nothing here that would contradict their position, and the outcome would be greatly pleasing.
Even if Keaton's impetus for joining the cause was a girl, that doesn't make it better. He's still fighting against the Union.
In my opinion, I think the application of critical theory in entertainment is for the better, and am glad we are not remaining at the embarrassingly low threshold that was once applied, which left unscathed a lot of Mammy caricatures, white savior narratives, and, yes, pardons for the Confederates on the table (among other issues), completely thoughtless of what the messages actually being conveyed are. We avoided the subtext because we loved the entertainment.
A few specific points, and then I don't mind continuing. I don't see the problem if new points are raised. Being challenged has never bothered me, I just want to be understood. Only thing is, I think with a lot of these points, I previously said my peace. Perhaps I didn't express it well enough, but I do believe a lot of this is there.
Teproc - I should've been more specific in saying people for the South, better to say people who were slaveholders and/or fought for the Confederacy. And yes, I think sympathy for them is problematic, I don't bend on that.
I appreciate your interpretation of my intent and trying to give me a little benefit of the doubt. You are correct in that these films being part of a canon impacts my overall thoughts, but even if I saw this apart from this marathon, I would still think it problematic for points I've raised above and in previous posts. I just oppose it even more because it's considered a top forty film of all-time by a reputable source.
Sam - I don't believe in telling stories about sympathetic Nazis, either. When I saw Inglourious Basterds and the Swastika branding, I totally got it. You can't live that down. There may be a certain narrative where they flip on their cause to make things better, but that doesn't apply to The General, and you can also never bring back the lives that your efforts have taken. To Teproc's point about being sympathetic for Generic Southerner X, if they didn't own slaves or support secession, then they didn't choose the Cause and aren't the problem. There are certainly interesting stories to be mined there, resistance narratives can be quite powerful (though also problematic if you're resisting, say, school integration). But once you've joined the Cause or owned a human as property, there is no sympathy for you.
1SO - When it comes to creators defining/redefining problematic work, the problem is that nearly anything can be rationalized. If the work isn't problematic - which again, I've picked out 3 (mayyyybe 4) of something like 70 films in this marathon that I consider truly problematic - then authorial intent is more interesting and meaningful.
Nowhere in here do I say that this film was weaponized in one way or another, I think you're reading into my words a bit. I have no idea the direct impact this had on people in the 20's, but representation and iconography matter a great deal regardless, and in this film, the representations and symbols are really straightforward. We are learning as a country the importance of such, and are acting accordingly. Andrew Jackson's statue at Lafayette Park was under assault as recently as today.
When it comes to expecting anyone to agree with me, or go on any particular journey besides seeing how I react to a lot of canon films that are new to me (and hopefully keep it interesting), I put this at the end of my Keaton review, and I think it bears repeating, with some emphasis:
To be truly honest, this is the only place on the internet I really discuss anything of value, because I think most forms of virtual social gathering require you to be in lockstep with one way of thinking or another. That's not for me. While I think the time has come to "cancel" certain works that have long been thought to be great, I know that there's room to discuss and agree and disagree. On Twitter, for instance, agreeing or disagreeing on one particular issue gets you lumped in with a group you may not be a part of, i.e. defund the police or you are a white supremacist. For me, though, I actually think the Sight & Sound list is important as an arbiter of the cinematic canon, and I think it's important to call out the ones that no longer fits the evolving vision of a multicultural and inclusive society (where America lags behind many of its European counterparts). Fortunately, here we have a place to discuss all of this and figure things out for ourselves, but all have our thoughts mediated through the thought we put in our posts and natural reflections that occur while posting, as well as by our conversations with others. (At minimum, a lot of you challenge me. I don't stop being me, but I do think I'm becoming better as a thinker and critic because of you all.)
------
Ultimately, I'd like to be in a place where all historical figures, icons, symbols, etc., are put in their correct places according to the tenets of freedom and justice for all people. That will always be a part of my evaluations, and nothing can get a positive rating that so greatly offends my morals or ethics. Truth be told, I let more things slide than not, because I think they are minor enough to overlook or put in the "people aren't perfect and the process of consciousness-raising will always be ongoing" category. I digress...There are so many great stories that have been told and are to be told, we don't need one about a guy who enlists in the Confederate army and fights the Union, period. It's just unnecessary. I think a particular truth is that The General is old, not popular on the level of a Gone with the Wind (officially canceled now), and so goes under the radar anyway. Yet, I think if such a thing were made and released today, there'd be all sorts of objections, and yes, I'd be on the side of the objectors. I know it wasn't, it was released almost a century ago, but it is on a current, highly-regarded critics' list of best ever films, so though I normally look at things through the lens of today anyway, it's even more acute for a film that's still considered one of the greatest of all time.