Howdy, Anyone catch the beginning of this documentary this past weekend? I've enjoyed it so far.
*** THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION*** Ken Burns Doc Thread
6,280 Views |
99 Replies |
Last: 16 days ago by tmaggies
i did but fell alseep so i recorded it and will watch tonigh
BQ_90 said:
i did but fell alseep so i recorded it and will watch tonigh
Well that's a riveting review.
OldArmyCT said:BQ_90 said:
i did but fell alseep so i recorded it and will watch tonigh
Well that's a riveting review.
I'm not fired up,about it. The previews didn't look all that good
I actually fell asleep as well.
They seem to be losing the big picture, trying to promote DEI issues.
Burns' vision of Washington would justify tearing down all his monuments.
For the record, my wife fell asleep too and is skipping the rest of it. Definitely not Burns' best work.
Burns' vision of Washington would justify tearing down all his monuments.
For the record, my wife fell asleep too and is skipping the rest of it. Definitely not Burns' best work.
Wife and I were looking forward to it. It seems a bit suspect. Maybe it'll get better but it was a slow start. We lasted about 45 minutes.
I think Burns should have named this the American Hypocrisy not the American Revolution. He only looks at this with a 21st Century lens and for the most part white men are just awful as a race and gender. It seems okay when he sticks to history but there is way too much preaching and after just a third of the entire documentary is complete, it is already tiresome. We get it Ken, now just tell the story.
Spore Ag said:
I actually fell asleep as well.
Me too
At least for me, it got better towards the end of episode 1.
I will say some of this is a boomerang, he took a fair amount of criticism in the civil war for largely making it about white men in particular, and somewhat more sympathetic to the south than some thought right, so he is a bit reactionary here.
But as we get into the battles and war itself, that's where he always shines, and Lexington and Concord are towards the end of Ep1. I would hang in for that and see if your opinion starts to change.
I will say some of this is a boomerang, he took a fair amount of criticism in the civil war for largely making it about white men in particular, and somewhat more sympathetic to the south than some thought right, so he is a bit reactionary here.
But as we get into the battles and war itself, that's where he always shines, and Lexington and Concord are towards the end of Ep1. I would hang in for that and see if your opinion starts to change.
The imagery (sunset? sunrise?) in the opening was an almost exact reprise of The Civil War, which was disappointing.
I watched Ep. 1 to see what he did with Lexington and Concord, which I have read several books on. I thought his coverage was superficial, but I suppose he could have easily spent an hour just on L and C.
I was not able to finish Ep. 2 last night, but his coverage of the Bunker Hill battle was very good: more detail, good map. I need to finish that part.
I agree with BQ78 and will add that Burns has spent a long time on the Scottish guy and his Ethiopian Regiment. I really don't mind so far, since we do need to realize that slaves and Indians had a big stake in the Revolution too.
So far there is a lot of DEI preaching to go along with the "normal" history, and the whole experience is not exactly riveting stuff. I doubt I will watch it all.
I watched Ep. 1 to see what he did with Lexington and Concord, which I have read several books on. I thought his coverage was superficial, but I suppose he could have easily spent an hour just on L and C.
I was not able to finish Ep. 2 last night, but his coverage of the Bunker Hill battle was very good: more detail, good map. I need to finish that part.
I agree with BQ78 and will add that Burns has spent a long time on the Scottish guy and his Ethiopian Regiment. I really don't mind so far, since we do need to realize that slaves and Indians had a big stake in the Revolution too.
So far there is a lot of DEI preaching to go along with the "normal" history, and the whole experience is not exactly riveting stuff. I doubt I will watch it all.
how are you guys watching this?
I get these youtube promotional videos about the series the last few weeks, and have Youtube TV
I get these youtube promotional videos about the series the last few weeks, and have Youtube TV
PBS station
PBS app has it too
They also say as the credits roll that it is available on Amazon Prime.
Much better episode last night, not as much DEI stuff, I timed it. Half that was about a slave revolt in Jamaica, which had very little to do with the American Revolution. Still managed to have an occasional DEI comment throughput that did not get into the 10 minutes I timed.
The history of the battles was very good in this one. Really like the computer generated maps they are using in the series, very attractive and easy to follow.
Much better episode last night, not as much DEI stuff, I timed it. Half that was about a slave revolt in Jamaica, which had very little to do with the American Revolution. Still managed to have an occasional DEI comment throughput that did not get into the 10 minutes I timed.
The history of the battles was very good in this one. Really like the computer generated maps they are using in the series, very attractive and easy to follow.
Sorry, but is any centering of slaves and Indians in the narrative just DEI now?
When you say multiple times that the Patriots were fighting for freedom while holding slaves and protecting their property while stealing Indian lands, yes.
Spending 5 minutes on an obscure black woman poet and giving about the same amount of time to the Stamp Act and Intolerable Acts and the Declaration of Independence is out of proportion.
Spending 5 minutes on an obscure black woman poet and giving about the same amount of time to the Stamp Act and Intolerable Acts and the Declaration of Independence is out of proportion.
Sapper Redux said:
Sorry, but is any centering of slaves and Indians in the narrative just DEI now?
Exactly what do Hattian slaves have to do with this?
BQ78 said:
When you say multiple times that the Patriots were fighting for freedom while holding slaves and protecting their property while stealing Indian lands, yes.
Spending 5 minutes on an obscure black woman poet and giving about the same amount of time to the Stamp Act and Intolerable Acts and the Declaration of Independence is out of proportion.
Except the Patriot cause had a massive contradiction at the heart of it and the desire to secure slavery did motivate many planters in the lower South.
CanyonAg77 said:Sapper Redux said:
Sorry, but is any centering of slaves and Indians in the narrative just DEI now?
Exactly what do Hattian slaves have to do with this?
You may be surprised just how intertwined British North America was with the Caribbean.
Most certainly but the musical 1776 handles that better than Ken Burns. Other than writing the Declaration of Independence we get none of the discussions at the second continental congress. We know more about an obscure poet than we do about the happenings in. Philadelphia in the summer of 1776 if Ken Burns is your only source.
Sit Down, Ken!! Sit down Ken!
Last night's episode was the best so far.
Sit Down, Ken!! Sit down Ken!
Last night's episode was the best so far.
Sapper Redux said:
Sorry, but is any centering of slaves and Indians in the narrative just DEI now?
II's unsupported junk. The Zinn/Chomsky-ification of history continues. The lingering question now is was he always this way?
He doesn't write his ****, that I'm aware of.
I'm just waiting for a reference to the United Fruit Company at this point
p_bubel said:Sapper Redux said:
Sorry, but is any centering of slaves and Indians in the narrative just DEI now?
II's unsupported junk. The Zinn/Chomsky-ification of history continues. The lingering question now is was he always this way?
He doesn't write his ****, that I'm aware of.
What specifically is unsupported in your mind?
Sapper Redux said:p_bubel said:Sapper Redux said:
Sorry, but is any centering of slaves and Indians in the narrative just DEI now?
II's unsupported junk. The Zinn/Chomsky-ification of history continues. The lingering question now is was he always this way?
He doesn't write his ****, that I'm aware of.
What specifically is unsupported in your mind?
The Iroquois Confederation nonsense is an easy one.
Except their influence has been discussed and studied since the 80s. No one is claiming they were the primary influence on the colonists, but they were known and influential on people like Franklin.
Sapper Redux said:
Except their influence has been discussed and studied since the 80s. No one is claiming they were the primary influence on the colonists, but they were known and influential on people like Franklin.
Like I said, absolute revisionist junk with no basis in history.
There's no shortage first hand accounts, none mention this. Franklin 'mentions them once? Well before the revolution?
p_bubel said:Sapper Redux said:
Except their influence has been discussed and studied since the 80s. No one is claiming they were the primary influence on the colonists, but they were known and influential on people like Franklin.
Like I said, absolute revisionist junk with no basis in history.
There's no shortage first hand accounts, none mention this. Franklin 'mentions them once? Well before the revolution?
He mentions them multiple times. Jefferson as well. Like I said, this is ground that has been researched for 50 years at this point. No one is saying it was the sole inspiration or a major inspiration, but it absolutely was one and influenced the culture and debates of the colonists in the northeast and middle colonies.
Franklin definitely mentioned them. It's become fairly well established among historians that they were an influence in 1754,
https://thepenngazette.com/franklin-and-the-iroquois-foundations-of-the-constitution/
https://thepenngazette.com/franklin-and-the-iroquois-foundations-of-the-constitution/
Franklin mentioned them twice in all his writing, in the 1740s. Maybe three times
One of the most free thinking and prolific colonial writers. It's not a thing.
One of the most free thinking and prolific colonial writers. It's not a thing.
p_bubel said:
Franklin mentioned them twice in all his writing. Maybe three times. It's not a thing.
Meanwhile multiple historians over the last 50 years have spent years researching this and it is in fact a thing.
An appeal to authority is a losing argument these days
p_bubel said:
An appeal to authority is a losing argument these days
Right. You're just going to randomly make your mind up because you don't like what the experts say. That's a critical thinking issue for folks locked into an ideological worldview. It has nothing to do with the quality of the work of the experts.
You're just hell bent on ignoring what I'm saying aren't you?
p_bubel said:
You're just hell bent on ignoring what I'm saying aren't you?
You're hellbent on ignoring the work that's been done. Again, no one is arguing the Constitution or the Declaration or the Articles of Confederation came about because of the Iroquois, but it was absolutely an influence on people like Franklin and he consciously published reports on the Iroquois form of government.
Featured Stories
See All
Ten season-defining moments along Texas A&M's championship run
by Richard Zane
5:44
2d ago
3.8k
The Film Room: Miami 10, Texas A&M 3
by Stephen McGee
6:00
3d ago
4.9k
Defense in Review feat. Sean Porter: Miami 10, Texas A&M 3
by Billy Liucci
5:21
2d ago
1.7k
LB Blitz: Miami 10, Texas A&M 3
by Sean Porter
Three Things: Top Christmas movies, portal reminders & more
by Jason Howell
Fireman
Left Field Opinion…Two Bowls should hold spots for First Round Losers
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
52
satexas
Left Field Opinion…Two Bowls should hold spots for First Round Losers
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
13