THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, November 21, 1994 TAG: 9411180023
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A8 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Short : 41 lines
Mark G. Malvasi's attack on filmmaker Ken Burns (``Ken Burns' `Baseball' in historical perspective,'' Another View, Nov. 7) was mean-spirited.
Malvasi labels Burns a ``self-appointed guardian of our national heritage,'' a description that could easily be applied to anyone who devotes his life to studying American history. What sets Burns apart is his commercial success. At a time when most Americans are woefully ignorant of our nation's past, historians should be praising Burns, not criticizing him, for reaching millions of viewers.
Malvasi says Burns' ``obsession'' with race relations has led him to distort history. If Malvasi is suggesting that race relations do not deserve the attention, it is he, not Burns, who has a distorted view of American history.
Burns' documentary on the Civil War places slavery and race relations where they belong - at the heart of the story. Because of this emphasis, Malvasi infers that Burns is unwilling to ``forgive others for the sin of not being like us.'' Nothing could be more absurd. Burns' film takes an unflinching look at the Civil War and its causes. But it explores these topics strictly within historical context.
Malvasi takes issue with the claim that Jackie Robinson's entry into white baseball marked the first ``broad progress in civil rights since the Civil War,'' but doesn't explain how the work of other leaders had the same sweeping impact on American society.
The overriding irony of Malvasi's essay is that Burns' films present a variety of viewpoints, through interviews with historians and others. Malvasi, by contrast, seems uncomfortable with any views that don't reinforce his own interpretation of history.
TOM ROBOTHAM
Norfolk, Nov. 10, 1994 by CNB