"Yet he was refused entry to the American army after the war because he was black."
in what country was a civil war fought to end slavery, squatdog? and in what country again were civil rights made law?
flyboys sounds like the perfect flick for you:
There are only two things wrong with Flyboys, directed by Tony Bill and written by Phil Sears, Blake T. Evans and David S. Ward. It doesn't give you any sense of the period, which is the First World War in Europe as experienced by the American fliers of the Lafayette Escadrille, and it doesn't give you any sense of actually being in battle. Other than that, it's a lot of fun.
As for the period, though the film is supposed to be based on real people and real experiences, the American fliers and their French leader, Captain Thenault (Jean Reno), don't come across as young men of the early 20th century but of the early 21st.
We can tell early on that the film means to flatter our prejudices, rather than to persuade us out of them. When the father of the spoiled rich boy, Lowry, refers to the war as a "noble conflict" and tells him that it is "time to do something worthy of your name" he couldn't have proclaimed his villainy more clearly if he had uttered a racial slur.
In general, none of these characters has the experiences or attitudes that would mark them out as being of their era except for Jensen, who takes pride in his family"s military tradition and sees himself as a "knight of the air." Rawlings looks at him with the pitying scorn of our time, not his own. "What?" asks Jensen. "We are. We're like knights."
The lack of appeal to the others of Jensen's self-mythologization as a knight is only one of several indications that the film has imported anachronistic post-war attitudes. Another is the character of Cassidy, the legendary ace who has outlived all his friends and who says to Rawlings in world-weary tones, "I was a lot like you: full of idealism, maybe even a sense of honor. But I realized that this war isn't going to be won by anyone."
So then, asks Rawlings, why fight?
"So I can see that as many of you as possible survive this useless war... You've got to find your own meaning in this war. I would be real disappointed if more of our guys died in vain than the Germans."
Even if it were not impossible that someone could have said this in 1916, it was so much more common for people to say things like it ten or 15 years later that it cannot but strike us as the facile recourse to hindsight that it is.
Such fashionable disillusionment with noble-sounding ideals of honor and chivalry and patriotism has of course become a commonplace since then, but as applied to the events of 1914-1918 themselves it looks out of place.
It's easy to forget that we are looking at those events through the spectacles of the very different world of almost a century later.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10443