Let's settle the Thomas Jefferson debate once and for all...
.
On episode 5. So the DEIfication of the American Revolution by Burns is not as bad as I thought it would be. It is interspersed throughout needlessly for sure and is annoying. But there’s enough meaningful stuff there to still make it watchable and dilute the nonsense.
What is patent though is that the narrative of the Doc is unabashedly pro Loyalist/ Crown.
Washington, jaded because he never got his commission in the British army. In the war almost entirely for revenge. Poor field commander (pretty true).
Samuel Adams and Thomas Paine: dishonest propagandists
John Paul Jones: little more than a pirate
Is there any doubt that if Burns lived during the Revolution he’d be a loyalist bitch?
30 minutes on the South Carolina campaign and not a single mention of Francis Marion.
That is an unforgivable oversight.
@carramrod swamp fox. Father of guerilla warfare. Can’t talk about sc without him
30 minutes on the South Carolina campaign and not a single mention of Francis Marion.
That is an unforgivable oversight.
Mel Gibson wasn't available.
30 minutes on the South Carolina campaign and not a single mention of Francis Marion.
That is an unforgivable oversight.
Mel Gibson wasn't available.
An undeniably entertaining movie. But as a biopic of Marion, or really any Continental officer, completely inaccurate.
And you know that’s why Burns left Marion out. Too much abject patriotism so he had to get his passive aggressive dig in. He’s not even worth mentioning apparently because of a movie done 200+ years later that Burns didn’t like.
Rescind: they mention Marion in ep. 6 although it briefly and only once.
I think our failure at the Battle of Quebec was a flaw. We will see how Burns treats that.
Go on... more specifically, what was/were the flaw/flaws?
I am only mostly through 2, but I had the same lump in my throat during Breed's/Bunker Hill that I get in watching Omaha Beach or Chosin Reservoir documentaries.
He mentions slavery and points out that though the Brits offered freedom they were certainly not abolitionists. They mention Washington's slaves then the Black historian said a line very close to one I use, that these men were not gilded marble men, but then neither are we. My take, since I have used the marble men comparison often, every human has warts. Washington had slavery, that doesn't make him worse than us today. We have our warts too. His warts were just different.
I mean several of you like soccer.
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.
I'm not sure I agree. I suppose in is more Hollywood romance to see an uprising or rebellion against a Monarchy (see William Wallace), but a revolution stemming from unfair taxation and restrictions is still one worth watching. In Episode two, they talk about how the Colonists used the British slaying their own - in particular, when the British hired Hessians and other outside mercenaries - as a rallying cry.
My point is that how you frame it will color how you think about other events in our past and present. That, to me, is one of the more interesting aspects of studying history.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.
I'm not sure I agree. I suppose in is more Hollywood romance to see an uprising or rebellion against a Monarchy (see William Wallace), but a revolution stemming from unfair taxation and restrictions is still one worth watching. In Episode two, they talk about how the Colonists used the British slaying their own - in particular, when the British hired Hessians and other outside mercenaries - as a rallying cry.
Maybe this will help you:It was excellent. I don’t get the consternation a few seem to be having with it.Word is Burns couldn’t refrain from injecting his shitty racial politics into episode two. Episode is getting panned. I haven’t seen it myself, but that would track.
I watched him give the commencement address at UPenn a few years ago and the whole thing was “Ben Franklin’s infidelity this, founders racism that”.
But he made sure to let the graduates know they were all brave for surviving covid. Aka, sitting at home and doing zoom school in their sweats.
Guy actually used to be a halfway decent documentarian too. Tragic.
Im halfway through the first episode and almost gave up because of the constant jabs around minorities and women. Yea, we get it, shit wasn’t great when you look back 300 years later, but let’s stick to the main issues and not try and make everything into victimization
It is a documentary about the US, ALL of the US. Not just, "rah rah, go White men." That would be called propaganda. I thought episode 1 was excellent.
https://nypost.com/2025/11/24/opinion/ken-burns-makes-a-woke-mockery-of-americas-founding/
As to the connection between the Iroqouis and our "democracy and constitution"
"The film suggests a connection between a statement made by the Iroquois leader Canasatego recommending a union on the one hand and Franklin on the other, but this is will-o’-the-wisp stuff.
Canasatego made his statement at a 1744 conference over the Treaty of Lancaster, a negotiation between the Iroquois and several colonies.
For his part, Franklin cited the Iroquois having a confederacy in one sentence in a 1751 letter about the possibility of a colonial union.
That’s it."
"As the scholar Robert Natelson has noted, the Iroquois don’t show up as a model in the 34-volume “Journals of the Continental Congress”; the three-volume collection “The Records of the Federal Convention” (in tiger words, the Constitutional Convention); or the more than 40-volume “Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution.”"
And as for the make up of the supposed Iroquois "democracy":
"As for the Iroquois confederation being a democracy, it’s laughable agitprop.
There were no elections; leaders were selected by women elders, whose status was hereditary."
****
But y'all said there should be no explanation of their "democracy," right? Huh, I wonder how I smoked that one out just by asking a few, basic questions? Why didn't Burns? Or worse, why did he mislead people about the Iroquios history? @arthur-dent
Well, that one article proves everyone else wrong! There you go. Also, was unaware that you were a snowflake. I watched the entire series it was very well done. It wasn't perfect from my perspective, but it was damn good. Any objective person could watch it without clutching his/her pearls.Maybe this will help you:It was excellent. I don’t get the consternation a few seem to be having with it.Word is Burns couldn’t refrain from injecting his shitty racial politics into episode two. Episode is getting panned. I haven’t seen it myself, but that would track.
I watched him give the commencement address at UPenn a few years ago and the whole thing was “Ben Franklin’s infidelity this, founders racism that”.
But he made sure to let the graduates know they were all brave for surviving covid. Aka, sitting at home and doing zoom school in their sweats.
Guy actually used to be a halfway decent documentarian too. Tragic.
Im halfway through the first episode and almost gave up because of the constant jabs around minorities and women. Yea, we get it, shit wasn’t great when you look back 300 years later, but let’s stick to the main issues and not try and make everything into victimization
It is a documentary about the US, ALL of the US. Not just, "rah rah, go White men." That would be called propaganda. I thought episode 1 was excellent.
https://nypost.com/2025/11/24/opinion/ken-burns-makes-a-woke-mockery-of-americas-founding/
As to the connection between the Iroqouis and our "democracy and constitution"
"The film suggests a connection between a statement made by the Iroquois leader Canasatego recommending a union on the one hand and Franklin on the other, but this is will-o’-the-wisp stuff.
Canasatego made his statement at a 1744 conference over the Treaty of Lancaster, a negotiation between the Iroquois and several colonies.
For his part, Franklin cited the Iroquois having a confederacy in one sentence in a 1751 letter about the possibility of a colonial union.
That’s it."
"As the scholar Robert Natelson has noted, the Iroquois don’t show up as a model in the 34-volume “Journals of the Continental Congress”; the three-volume collection “The Records of the Federal Convention” (in tiger words, the Constitutional Convention); or the more than 40-volume “Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution.”"
And as for the make up of the supposed Iroquois "democracy":
"As for the Iroquois confederation being a democracy, it’s laughable agitprop.
There were no elections; leaders were selected by women elders, whose status was hereditary."
****
But y'all said there should be no explanation of their "democracy," right? Huh, I wonder how I smoked that one out just by asking a few, basic questions? Why didn't Burns? Or worse, why did he mislead people about the Iroquios history? @arthur-dent
To be completely honest, I have no idea what you mean in your closing paragraph.
@bradstevens can you repeat to me the Franklin quote in episode 1 word for word? At no point does it say the US based it's constitution on the Iroquois. The series is pointing out there were governmentS in North America alongside the English government. They had some interesting ideas, the Iroquois had a federalist form.
As I said, most descendents of Iroquois ARE Americans today. Why are we so offended brown Americans are given a crumb over White Europeans. Look at that quote, word for word, and tell me how it says the US based it's government on them
But if I had to suggest a couple of things, the Iroquois Confederacy prohibited one from having multiple positions, as do we. The Romans and Brits have/had no such restrictions though Greece did. Greece had federalism, Rome did not.
Iroquois had a form of impeachment, as do we. We didn't copy, but is it impossible the people in Philly knew of these and, as part of their overall knowledge, considered them
Many Americans view Natives as ignorant savages yet today. Consider that sentence in context of the quote
Latest Post: 2027 HS Recruiting News Our newest member: Kieran Dunn Recent Posts Unread Posts
