The American Revolution by Ken Burns (5 Viewers)

[Combat]

The campaign against the Indians, or Native Americans if you prefer, was in retaliation for attacks committed against settlers such as the Cherry Valley Massacre.

It would be refreshing if some of these historians would provide a neutral buttssment of the conflicts with the Indians. The Indians would have slaughtered every European settler and other tribe had they the capacity to do so. They engaged in all manner of atrocities. Those atrocities resulted in retaliation by the European settlers. Unfortunately, it's impossible for modern day historians to make this point because it doesn't fit the narrative. They would be forever banned from the cocktail parties on Martha's Vineyard. Ironically, it is a perpetuation of the "noble savage" stereotype so prevalent in the movies of the 1950s that they also hate.

 

[Go for Broke]

It would be refreshing if some of these historians would provide a neutral buttssment of the conflicts with the Indians. The Indians would have slaughtered every European settler and other tribe had they the capacity to do so. They engaged in all manner of atrocities. Those atrocities resulted in retaliation by the European settlers. Unfortunately, it's impossible for modern day historians to make this point because it doesn't fit the narrative. They would be forever banned from the cocktail parties on Martha's Vineyard. Ironically, it is a perpetuation of the "noble savage" stereotype so prevalent in the movies of the 1950s that they also hate.

I read a book about Southwestern Indians and you would come away that they were real savages, not to just settlers, but other tribes too. Really brutal stuff. I guess its a competition for resources and territory.

 

[jazzeum]

Although I slept through most it, there's always something to learn. Last night's episode had the patriots going total war on the Indians, killing, destroying their houses and burning crops. Something new to me. Also laying a chain across a waterway to prevent the British from sailing up the river. I knew this from a Cromwell book. If I lived on the east coast, I would totally be into the Revolutionary War. I'm contemplating watching this series again, but at 12-hours long, it quite the commitment.

If you have Amazon Prime you can watch it at your leisure. I think you need to subscribe to PBS Docs on Prime, which I find to be worth it. I’ve been watching the West series that way.

 

[Dragoon]

I steam PBS, so the series is available to watch anytime. This probably makes it a more enjoyable viewing experience than 2 hrs. a night for several nights in a row. Also just starting the second book of Rick Atkinson's Revolution War trilogy so the series and books are overlapping nicely. - The battle maps are very well done, nicely illustrating the progression of the battles, especially the 3D village map depicting the battle of Trenton.

 

[Terp152]

I steam PBS, so the series is available to watch anytime. This probably makes it a more enjoyable viewing experience than 2 hrs. a night for several nights in a row. Also just starting the second book of Rick Atkinson's Revolution War trilogy so the series and books are overlapping nicely. - The battle maps are very well done, nicely illustrating the progression of the battles, especially the 3D village map depicting the battle of Trenton.

Atkinson's books on the ARW are outstanding. It takes him about 3-4 yrs to research each volume as he told me. So going to be a while before the last book is out.

 

[Dragoon]

Atkinson's books on the ARW are outstanding. It takes him about 3-4 yrs to research each volume as he told me. So going to be a while before the last book is out.

That's good to know. I thought it might already be published. - Guess I'll take my time reading book two.

 

[Combat]

I read a book about Southwestern Indians and you would come away that they were real savages, not to just settlers, but other tribes too. Really brutal stuff. I guess its a competition for resources and territory.

I think where historians miss the mark is not acknowledging that almost every event in early American history was driven by a desire to obtain wealth rather than some other guiding principle. It was not racism or conquest although those certainly existed. In many instances, racism or conflict with the Indians was merely byproducts of the economic engine and not the driving force. Our mostly liberal historians graft their own political bias onto events of the past to formulate a desired narrative for the present. They have a desire to emphasize certain motivations and downplay others. For America the objective was not necessarily to promote democracy, racism, or equality but seeking wealth. People came here for an opportunity to make a fortune. When there was economic gain to had through slavery, then there was slavery. Where there was not, there was no slavery. Same deal with the Indians. When the Indians interfered with the quest for wealth, they were dealt with harshly. When they cooperated, as many did, they were treated fairly. Racism could be overcome by economic incentives. Democracy was promoted when it allowed folks a greater opportunity to obtain wealth and ignored when it did not.

 

[Terp152]

I think where historians miss the mark is not acknowledging that almost every event in early American history was driven by a desire to obtain wealth rather than some other guiding principle. It was not racism or conquest although those certainly existed. In many instances, racism or conflict with the Indians was merely byproducts of the economic engine and not the driving force. Our mostly liberal historians graft their own political bias onto events of the past to formulate a desired narrative for the present. They have a desire to emphasize certain motivations and downplay others. For America the objective was not necessarily to promote democracy, racism, or equality but seeking wealth. People came here for an opportunity to make a fortune. When there was economic gain to had through slavery, then there was slavery. Where there was not, there was no slavery. Same deal with the Indians. When the Indians interfered with the quest for wealth, they were dealt with harshly. When they cooperated, as many did, they were treated fairly. Racism could be overcome by economic incentives. Democracy was promoted when it allowed folks a greater opportunity to obtain wealth and ignored when it did not.

You could also point out that Indians, notably the Cherokee, owned slaves.

 

[Terp152]

That's all well and good but it seems like it's the focal point of the series.

"Hey everybody, the Father of our country was not the swell guy you all thought he was."

Watched episode two yesterday, yes I'm behind but was finishing two other series, and about the first hour centered on slavery and specifically regarding G Washington. Joseph Ellis, the prolificate author of early American History and oft interviewed historian on this series, described Washington as the "indispensable American" in his books to which I would add J Adams and B Franklin. Yet Burns presents him in a totally negative perspective in this segment.

 

[Desertkiwi]

It would be refreshing if some of these historians would provide a neutral buttssment of the conflicts with the Indians. The Indians would have slaughtered every European settler and other tribe had they the capacity to do so. They engaged in all manner of atrocities. Those atrocities resulted in retaliation by the European settlers. Unfortunately, it's impossible for modern day historians to make this point because it doesn't fit the narrative. They would be forever banned from the cocktail parties on Martha's Vineyard. Ironically, it is a perpetuation of the "noble savage" stereotype so prevalent in the movies of the 1950s that they also hate.

Would whole heartedly agree.

Of course all of this reflects the 'anti-colonization' rhetoric western societies have been bombarded with in recent times, in conjunction with this 'white privilege' rubbish that has been indoctrinated into our youth by a horde of left leaning Marxist academics who have flooded and now dominate our educationally facilities.

According to their teachings we're all supposed to feel an overwhelming sense of guilt about how our forebears behaved towards the indigenous occupiers of these lands, while dismissing and deliberately ignoring reality so it can fit their Disneyland version of history.

Of course anyone questioning or attempting to debate this ideology is cancelled in an instance, labelled a racist and if you're really lucky called a 'fascist.'

 

[Horus]

Would whole heartedly agree.

Of course all of this reflects the 'anti-colonization' rhetoric western societies have been bombarded with in recent times, in conjunction with this 'white privilege' rubbish that has been indoctrinated into our youth by a horde of left leaning Marxist academics who have flooded and now dominate our educationally facilities.

According to their teachings we're all supposed to feel an overwhelming sense of guilt about how our forebears behaved towards the indigenous occupiers of these lands, while dismissing and deliberately ignoring reality so it can fit their Disneyland version of history.

Of course anyone questioning or attempting to debate this ideology is cancelled in an instance, labelled a racist and if you're really lucky called a 'fascist.'

The lefts go to words to avoid having a discussion or when as usual they are losing one, have become so debased through misuse, to have less and less effect.

They have just about reached the point where they just mean, you have a different opinion to me and I don't like it, so I'm just going to scream insults in the hope that something will stick, so that I don't have to examine what I've been mouthing, as I have a sneaking suspicion that you're right, and I can't ever admit that I might be wrong !

 

[OzDigger]

Would whole heartedly agree.

Of course all of this reflects the 'anti-colonization' rhetoric western societies have been bombarded with in recent times, in conjunction with this 'white privilege' rubbish that has been indoctrinated into our youth by a horde of left leaning Marxist academics who have flooded and now dominate our educationally facilities.

According to their teachings we're all supposed to feel an overwhelming sense of guilt about how our forebears behaved towards the indigenous occupiers of these lands, while dismissing and deliberately ignoring reality so it can fit their Disneyland version of history.

Of course anyone questioning or attempting to debate this ideology is cancelled in an instance, labelled a racist and if you're really lucky called a 'fascist.'

The lefts go to words to avoid having a discussion or when as usual they are losing one, have become so debased through misuse, to have less and less effect.

They have just about reached the point where they just mean, you have a different opinion to me and I don't like it, so I'm just going to scream insults in the hope that something will stick, so that I don't have to examine what I've been mouthing, as I have a sneaking suspicion that you're right, and I can't ever admit that I might be wrong !

Sadly you can't fix 'Stupid'.

 

[Terp152]

This is from a national columnist: "Why does Ken Burns wish his audience to believe untruths about the American Founding? To be fair, there is plenty to like in the first episode. It’s hard not to tell an inspiring story in covering this material. Burns is a skillful storyteller backed by a star-studded voiceover cast, including Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney reprising the voices of John and Abigail Adams. Onscreen, we hear from many distinguished historians. But he just can’t seem to resist the temptation to tell a story that is fashionable with the enemies of the American Founding rather than one that is true."

 

[theBaron]

The comments you all have posted cover all the reasons why I choose not to watch this series. I'm not a fan of Burns. "The Civil War" was a great documentary, groundbreaking, and it set the standard for documentaries that followed, like "The American Revolution" and "Liberty!" "Baseball" taught us that baseball was the Yankees, the Red Sox, and the Negro Leagues. Oh, and some guy named Schmidt did something at some time in Philadelphia. But that was it.
Burns definitely has an agenda, and I'd rather read source material than watch his content.

Prost!
Brad

 

[jazzeum]

This is from a national columnist: "Why does Ken Burns wish his audience to believe untruths about the American Founding? To be fair, there is plenty to like in the first episode. It’s hard not to tell an inspiring story in covering this material. Burns is a skillful storyteller backed by a star-studded voiceover cast, including Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney reprising the voices of John and Abigail Adams. Onscreen, we hear from many distinguished historians. But he just can’t seem to resist the temptation to tell a story that is fashionable with the enemies of the American Founding rather than one that is true."

The article you mention is in the National Review, https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/11/no-ken-burns-the-united-states-is-not-an-iroquois-nation/

The one thing to remember about Burns is he’s a storyteller, not a historian. His programs should be a point of departure for further learning, not the end. At the end of the article he mentions the problems with the Civil War program: Shelby Foote and his views on compromise, etc. That’s why I took that program with two grains of salt. Not of interest to you I’m sure but he was excoriated in the jazz community how he approached his Jazz documentary.

Back to the article, the question that has caused controversy is whether the Haudenasaunee Confederation was the model for colonial unions that led eventually to the Constitution.

Here’s an article by William Hogeland that examines the question. By the way, he has a very good Substack.

Did the Iroquois Really Influence the Birth of the Union?

For a fight at Thanksgiving, bring that one up.

open.substack.com

In addition, I came across this useful post on Reddit,

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/iyvarp/comment/g6k6r1s

 

[Dragoon]

You mention Shelby Foote, interestingly he too like Burns considered himself a storyteller, not a historian.

 

[jazzeum]

You mention Shelby Foote, interestingly he too like Burns considered himself a storyteller, not a historian.

He was a little too folksy for my tastes.

 

[Terp152]

He was a little too folksy for my tastes.

That was his appeal I think. His three volume narrative is still riveting IMO, even if somewhat biased.

 

[Terp152]

The article you mention is in the National Review, https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/11/no-ken-burns-the-united-states-is-not-an-iroquois-nation/

The one thing to remember about Burns is he’s a storyteller, not a historian. His programs should be a point of departure for further learning, not the end. At the end of the article he mentions the problems with the Civil War program: Shelby Foote and his views on compromise, etc. That’s why I took that program with two grains of salt. Not of interest to you I’m sure but he was excoriated in the jazz community how he approached his Jazz documentary.

Back to the article, the question that has caused controversy is whether the Haudenasaunee Confederation was the model for colonial unions that led eventually to the Constitution.

Here’s an article by William Hogeland that examines the question. By the way, he has a very good Substack.

Did the Iroquois Really Influence the Birth of the Union?

For a fight at Thanksgiving, bring that one up.

open.substack.com

In addition, I came across this useful post on Reddit,

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/iyvarp/comment/g6k6r1s

Brad, I read the lengthy Hogeland disputation, from which he projects a "who really cares?" position regarding the 1754 conference (and a denigration of B Franklin). Nevertheless, there is a clear, at least to me and others, a direct connection in the opening episode between the Six Nations Confederation and the Colonial 1754 proposal to unite. Why else would Burns so deliberately include it? The Federalist Papers, crucial to the states ratification of the proposed constitution referenced the Greeks States but make no mention of the Haudenasaunee Confederacy.

BTW, I'm obtuse as to your reference to me in regards to the criticism of Burns Jazz docuseries. I did not watch that but am aware of the criticism.

Finally, are you a NR reader? Who'd thought?

And in the spirit of our colonial forefathers,
Your most obedient servant,
Chris

 

[Terp152]

For me, it’s a bit different. Whenever a new historian I look up their books and save them to my Amazon lists for possible future purchases.

On a less controversial note, which historians have piqued your interest? I've read many, if not all books by J Ellis and R Atkinson, HW Brands from Burns' B Franklin series seem promising.