"Glory": Shaw Wasn't the Real Hero, Guys. Change My Mind.

Okay, okay, so I just rewatched "Glory" (again – what else am I gonna do on a Saturday night?), and it STILL hits hard. McConaughey in "Amistad" knew whatsup. But I gotta say something that might be kinda controversial... I think we're giving Robert Gould Shaw way too much credit. Hear me out before you start throwing virtual tomatoes! It's always 'Shaw this' and 'Shaw that,' but seriously, were he and I in two different boats? Think about it. Shaw, played perfectly by Broderick, starts out kinda naive, right? Like, he means well, but he doesn't really get it. He's got that whole "noble white savior" thing going on. I'm not saying he's a bad guy, but the real heart of the movie is in the 54th Massachusetts itself. Denzel's Trip? Dude, that's a hero. Raw, angry, but willing to fight for something he believes in, even if it's wrapped up in all sorts of messed-up hypocrisies. 'It's my right to be buried in this country,' you know? And even Morgan Freeman's character, Rawlins, the gravedigger... the way he keeps the unit together with quiet strength? Chefs kiss. And consider this for a theory: Shaw's arc is important, sure. From a privileged kid to a leader who actually sees his men as equals. But maybe his story wouldn't be half as impactful if it weren't for the 54th pushing him to be better. Like, he's learning from them, not the other way around. Remember that scene where Trip gets whipped? Shaw's reaction is important, but the reason it's important is because of what Trip endures. Dude, what a scene! Maybe I'm overthinking it. But I think "Glory," while being about the 54th, kinda accidentally puts Shaw at the center. When it should be about the soldiers themselves, not just their commander. What do y'all think? Am I way off base? Hit me with it. 'I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!' Now give me your thoughts!