The American Revolution by Ken Burns (2 Viewers)

[Terp152]

Ich verstehe.

Ich verstehe.
Du verstehst.
Er, sie, es versteht.
Wir verstehen.
Ihr versteh(e)t.
Sie verstehen.

Prost!
Brad

Never could conjugate

 

[Obee]

This series is starting in Australia on Sunday on SBS @ 8:30 pm, also that means it will be on 'SBS On Demand' so I can catch it at any time.

John

 

[Combat]

Having read many books on the subject, I was looking fwd to this series very much but sorely disappointed. The denigration of colonial Americans in general and our Founding Fathers in particular was distracting to say the least. I had to force myself to watch the last two episodes and became more interested in what next woke diatribe was coming and less to learn from and enjoy the show. A few examples:

• immigrants came to America for opportunities mainly in "slavery and Indian lands." How many lower class people from Europe owned slaves?
• Geo Rogers Clark, who ended British rule in what was then the far west, criticized for using Indian tactics (not seen as such by the narrator)
• constant slandering of G Washington over the slavery issue. One antidotal story concerning an African boy, which was not true. Had to mention his personal slave accompanying W after tendering his resignation to Congress, widely seen a truly magnanimous gesture.
• Mary Jenison, taken captive by Seneca and later married two Indian men. Not mentioned was the murder of her parents and young siblings during her journey.
• Mary Corbin, wounded at Ft Washington and given a half pay pension. We're told this was half given to men (evidently because Congress hated women). Actually a half pay pension was also given to men wounded in combat.
• Jane McCrea, fiancée of a Tory officer, brutally murdered and scalped. This became a "propaganda" story used against "our people" according to the interviewed historian (Americans are obviously not "his" people). It was a true story, not propaganda.
• Even Gen'l Clinton gets no credit for offering freedom to the slave as it was a "military purpose." Which it was but still...
• Many newly created states in the NE banned slavery after the war, but that was only because slaves were not economically important and evidently not done in the spirit of equality or enlightenment.

The narrative was so pointed and wearisome I will not be watching this series again, unlike the Civil War and Baseball documentaries.

You have a bunch of Martha's Vineyard's historians that have to spin a yarn that suits the desired narrative. They are not going to touch the real story. It has nothing to do with democracy or all men being created equal. The American story is about the acquisition of wealth. For good or ill, every event was driven by that incentive. The native Americans society was largely based around raiding and massacring other tribes. They would have killed every European settler had it been within their ability to do so. It's a revisionist fairy tale to portray them as some type of peace loving model of democracy.

 

[Desertkiwi]

I’ve been reading through this thread with interest and have a question regarding authors.

Can any one here recommend an historian author who gives an accurate overview of the AWI conflict?

 

[Terp152]

I’ve been reading through this thread with interest and have a question regarding authors.

Can any one here recommend an historian author who gives an accurate overview of the AWI conflict?

I can name two to start with, both being extensively interviewed in the series without being woke/anti-American unlike K Burns. Rick Atkinson (Pulitzer Prize for his WWII volume) has the first two books of his trilogy on the War released. And Joseph Ellis, author of quite a few books on the subject. Both very readable and informative. Brad/Jazzeum could suggest more.