bobbranco said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

The Revolution was not a European intellectual exercise. It was shaped in a specifically American context in which slaves and Natives played a huge role for centuries.

---

The noble historian class continue with the propagandizing history to meet their agenda. We are aware and thank you for continuing to demonstrate this revisionist charade.

---

I'm sorry the mean historians don't reinforce your prior beliefs.

Episode 4 overall was great.
And glad to see Episode 5 starting out by telling the story of the (failed) 1st French Naval foray to help us.

Glad they are using Atkinson a little more. Some of these other folks just lack any personality. The Bonaparte guy is obviously still hurt from the Indian's losing....his presentation is childish and petulant.

I don't think it was nearly as good as some of his other docs, but had it been anyone but Burns we were comparing it to it was really good. It did feel uneven to me, a lot more time spent on the politics of it all vs the actual war. Knowing some of the details going in, a lot was skipped over, but we got lots of time on native Americans, women, African Americans, other country's impacts etc. as I said above some of that was an over compensation to the criticisms he took on the Civil war so I get it.
But I will say the last five minutes really was good. Brining it to the present day and reminding us all of what it means, and done very apolitically.

We wuz …. Inventors of unions and shared government. So tiresome.

Recently visited 'Chickamauga Battlefield Park. Like a lot of battlefields, you can watch a 20-30 minute video on the battle.

It was obvious the producers of the video were students of Burns. Same style, period music. Focused on two soldiers, one Union, one Confederate. You 'heard' them read letters home to their wives. Later you would hear another voice read the letter sent home to inform loved ones of the death. Through the battles, you would hear different people comment on events, then their names.

"There were a lot of bullets flying around. - Private John Smith, 4th Alabama Dragoons."

And of course, the requisite references to slavery, even going back to the Revolution, and the narrator telling you "Slavery is bad, m'okay?" - Mr. Mackey

Despite the over-emphasis on slavery, the film was well done. Some of the re-enactments were excellent, some of the best I've seen.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Hey guys, eugenics had 60+ years of scholarly work backing it up.

That means something I guess.

---

Not to derail, but are you familiar with the US Supreme Court case "Buck v. Bell"? It's still on the books. Worth checking out.

Buck v. Bell | 274 U.S. 200 (1927) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Hey guys, eugenics had 60+ years of scholarly work backing it up.

That means something I guess.

---

Eugenics had a very contested debate in the actual science. It was popular with certain types of people in society who funded and promoted it. That's different from being a scholarly consensus.

BQ78 said:

---

Are you saying all the DEI information in the Burns documentary is "scholarly consensus." Because if you are, you are wrong and the comparison to Eugenics or Phrenology for that matter is spot on.

---

Which "DEI" information are you talking about? Your framing of the argument suggests responding would be complete waste of time, but here we are.

I'm not being coy. I'm tired of the framing of anything remotely about anyone who isn't a white male as "DEI." It's lazy and ignorant.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Eugenics had a very contested debate in the actual science. It was popular with certain types of people in society who funded and promoted it. That's different from being a scholarly consensus.

---

Climate change says "hi".

---

Just to add to your point, Buck v. Bell | 274 U.S. 200 (1927) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center is still good law and was decided by the luminaries of the US Supreme Court by an 8-1 vote. "Three generations of imbeciles are enough" indeed.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Eugenics had a very contested debate in the actual science. It was popular with certain types of people in society who funded and promoted it. That's different from being a scholarly consensus.

---

Climate change says "hi".

---

Climate change has extensive scientific support. Eugenics didn't.

BQ78 said:

---

Now who is being lazy?

Do you believe it is now the consensus of historians that the Iroquois had more influence on the US Constitution than European philosophers like Locke and Rosseau?

---

Can you point to that exact quote?

BQ78 said:

---

It was a documentary on TV. Burns talked at length about the influence of the Iroquois on establishing the American government. He may have briefly referred to Locke and never mentioned Rousseau and his influence on government of the people. Any consensus of historians who says the former was more important than the latter in its influence on the creation of this nation, is merely promoting the dogma of DEI.

---

Can you find a historian making that argument? And what exactly is the "dogma of DEI"?

BQ78 said:

---

Did you watch the documentary?

DEI dogma is promoting lesser important events and persons to be more significant than they actually were, because they have been oppressed in society.

---

Love to know where you got that definition. So bringing out neglected parts of the history is "DEI" to you? Is it a requirement that historians only promote the narrative you prefer to be valid?

BQ78 said:

---

Your reading comprehension is poor or you are being purposely obtuse.

---

I'm not being obtuse. Burns likes to bring up unique or neglected aspects of historical events in his films. That's hardly "DEI," which, again, is not an actual definition, just a conservative shorthand for "things I don't like involving minorities and women."

Your absolutely nuts….