What exact groups makes us too diverse to compete with Japan or Scandinavia?
No idea where you are going, but it's pretty clear that cultural diversity has pros and cons. One of the cons is that when one country includes cultures with a propensity for violence, among other issues, it is going to impact scores and metrics around safety, life expectancy, etc.
I think you are seeing some rapid changes in Scandinavia and I'll let you figure out why (Hint: see Sweden).
Washington crossing the Delaware and victory at Trenton is considered a turning point of the war. Washington holding the Army together at valley forge is also a great feat. He was a leader who inspired confidence.
There were a myriad of social ills in colonial culture ( by today’s standards). Those social ills were present way beyond colonial borders and were not unique to the revolutionaries. None of that is evidence of a flawed revolution against the dominant world power of the day.
Most who have read up on the battles know that Washington wasn’t a great military tactician or strategist.
True, he was a leader, not a military strategist. Are we allowed to mention that?
None of that is evidence of a flawed revolution against the dominant world power of the day.
Everything human is flawed, You aren't arguing the founding was perfect are you? So that leaves the idea that we have to pretend it was perfect.
I see 4 possibilities
1) revolution was perfect
2) revolution had flaws but we shall not mention them
3) the Revolution was flawed but overall great, we discuss it
4) the Revolution was evil
#3 seems the obvious answer to me. I suspect some Natives and slaves would argue 4 based on the results to them. I certainly would not make that claim nor is Burns.
1 is as wrong as 4, and 2 is censorship (as well as lazy).
I think Lincoln was a great man, a true hero. Lincoln was racist. That fact doesn't prevent me from saying that first sentence. Overcoming our imperfections actually makes us more heroic.
Babe Ruth was the greatest player of his generation and had an eating and drinking problem. That makes what he did even more incredible, not less.
Another one, Harry Truman was racist and he desegregated the military. That was one of the greatest acts of 20th century America. The fact he did it even though a racist makes it even more incredible.
We will overcome our problems today. I know that because Adams, Jefferson, and Washington overcame the problems of their day and they were no more of a god than we are.
If Truman can desegregate then none of us are beyond redemption.
Washington crossing the Delaware and victory at Trenton is considered a turning point of the war. Washington holding the Army together at valley forge is also a great feat. He was a leader who inspired confidence.
he had his moments, but had many failures NY, Philly captured, Germantown, etc.
he was a good leader, but not a great military mind.
Perfect/ Imperfect is not a helpful metric.
I think our failure at the Battle of Quebec was a flaw. We will see how Burns treats that.
I think we are done here.
Read my initial post about this, Marvin Dent. I said why it's an issue.No, you are wrong. You asked two. They are literally the first two sentences of the post you just referred to. My answers:
(1) Not yet, as previously stated.
(2) See the post you responded to with your questions (which referred not just to the documentary but also the article you linked). Generally: if you are going to talk about warts and all for one culture, nation, etc., you should probably be consistent and do it for all, time and space allowing. Both were in both the doc and the article.
So if he also mentions Rome and Greece, he would have to launch into the parts of both of those nations? And of course France assists us, he must then launch into the parts of France? So the alternative if he doesn't want the documentary is to portray all Americans as perfect. Otherwise if he points out a mistake be Washington, he is going to have to find mistakes in all British, French, and Native leaders?
If you want to highlight how American Democracy was limited or not pure enough, how hard would it be to write something like: The American experiment in democracy was not unique. Rome and Greece had developed the idea of popular sovereignty long ago, yet they limited the vote to [list them easily] and each had slaves. Even the Iriquois Confederacy had a similar system, [minor description here] although they too [whatever limitations].
One reason you wouldn't set out that historical context is because it would soften the moral argument against white people then and now. And yes, there are a lot of people--including, maybe especially, academics--who are influenced by that reason.
What this issue highlights, as well as this thread, is that it is impossible to "do history" or look at it without some kind of political lens filtering it. Politics (in the more abstract sense of a working out of contradicting values) always plays a role. Burns is not immune to this.
What is a "flawed" revolution?There were a myriad of social ills in colonial culture ( by today’s standards). Those social ills were present way beyond colonial borders and were not unique to the revolutionaries. None of that is evidence of a flawed revolution against the dominant world power of the day.
Is the American Revolution closer to, or more aptly described as, a civil war for secession?
Yes, the colonists ended up altering their form of government (although it's not like King George was a dictator as portrayed in American mythology), but wasn't it just another battle over the concept of more local rule?
In that sense, I guess the narrative isn't quite as romantic and earth shattering, not to mention it causes political problems for condemning the legal basis of the southern states attempt to secede and colors ongoing debates over the proper balance of federalism.
Perfect/ Imperfect is not a helpful metric.
I think our failure at the Battle of Quebec was a flaw. We will see how Burns treats that.
I think we are done here.
Maybe you think you are done, but what metric are you using? What metric do you put slavery in? Can we ever discuss slavery? Can we ever discuss the contribution of Native Americans to America? What rules are you imposing on discussing the Revolution?
@
Most who have read up on the battles know that Washington wasn’t a great military tactician or strategist.
True, he was a leader, not a military strategist. Are we allowed to mention that?
in a documentary that is supposed to be focused on the revolution, of which the war was a major component, how can you not? Particularly if you contrast him to other famous historical leaders (e.g., Napoleon).
He treats it factually. I'm through the fourth episode and I'm not seeing anything offensive, just a well-researched solid telling of history. However, I'm not a super sensitive snowflake.Perfect/ Imperfect is not a helpful metric.
I think our failure at the Battle of Quebec was a flaw. We will see how Burns treats that.
I think we are done here.
As I study, and think about, history, I increasingly focus on relevant events and causes and effects of those events. History includes everything from epic world changing events to minutiae having little or no broad impact. I am not convinced that flaws are always relevant, consequential or important. You have said often that you favor “warts and all” approach to history. Otherwise you seem to suggest history would be dishonest. That’s fine. I don’t agree. I can’t think of a better example than the discussions about Jefferson’s private sex life and the message of the Declaration of Independence.
@co-hoosier the problem is when we use what they wrote, said, and did, as the end all of discussion about policy today. Yes, they were great men doing great things. That doesn't mean their words of wisdom are infallible through the ages. We know from the 3/5ths measure that they were just getting done what they had to. They were under no illusion it was perfect. It was a compromise all the way down.
It is very easy to read too much into Jefferson's relationship, but that is no reason to banish the fact from history. In fact it helps explain the Constitution. Slave owners thought a new nation was a good idea, continued slavery was essential. Abolitionists thought abolition was a good idea, but a new nation was essential. That mismatch in priorities guaranteed slave owners would have the upper hand in any compromise.
That is said without judgement. I am not blaming the abolitionists, they had a very tough choice. It was never in their power to eliminate slavery. They were dealt a bad hand and played it the best they could.