So no Blacks, Natives, or women lived in the 13 colonies? I believe they did and whatever happened to them is as real as P Revere, G Washington, or T Jefferson. It is the story of us, all of us.
That would also include White men who were loyalists.
Somewhat less than 400,000 took up arms in favor of the revolution. A handful of others were political leaders of the revolution. Somewhat more than 2 million colonists lived here. Millions played no meaningful role. Just cuz women and minorities are among those doesn’t mean they are historically relevant.
Some colonies emancipated slaved who fought in favor of the revolution. Some Native Tribes took up arms in favor of the revolution. I hope Burns discusses those people for what they did, not because of their skin is a certain color.
Somewhat less than 400,000 took up arms in favor of the revolution. A handful of others were political leaders of the revolution. Somewhat more than 2 million colonists lived here. Millions played no meaningful role. Just cuz women and minorities are among those doesn’t mean they are historically relevant.
Some colonies emancipated slaved who fought in favor of the revolution. Some Native Tribes took up arms in favor of the revolution. I hope Burns discusses those people for what they did, not because of their skin is a certain color.
When you read further down you will see me linking an interview with Burns, the paragraph below answers your question about skin color. He is presenting the full gamut of the American experience. For some reason people want him to decide whose experience is more real. The problem is, the people who did nothing but go to work each day led every bit as real of a life as those that fought.
I hope that the film raises questions. What would I have done? Would I have been willing to fight for a cause? Would I have been willing to die for a cause? Would I be willing to kill somebody for a cause? Would I have tried to keep my head down? What causes James Horton, the 9-year-old free Black kid who hears the first reading of the Declaration [of Independence] in Philadelphia and doesn’t for a moment think it doesn’t apply to him? He knows it applies to him.
For some reason people want him to decide whose experience is more real.
That’s the point. I’m not denying the reality of any experience. I’m addressing the relevance of the experience, if Burns were to make a documentary on horse training in Virginia, I would expect to see a lot about Blacks.
That’s the point. I’m not denying the reality of any experience. I’m addressing the relevance of the experience, if Burns were to make a documentary on horse training in Virginia, I would expect to see a lot about Blacks.
So any WW2 story should not even utter the words "home front"? Those at home were not in the war, ergo they are in no way part of the story. If that is the point, I disagree that interpretation is the only valid interpretation. Life went on through these wars. People had to build the weapons, grow/raise the food, pay the taxes, give birth, die, etc all through these wars. They have a story too. Why should we utterly and completely ignore that part of history?
We get the wrong impressions about war just studying Washington, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, Dick Winters. Those are three of my favorite historical Americans. But they only represent an infinitesimal amount of what happened to Americans during these wars. I don't think Burns ever said he was going to only cover the combatants. He covers all of it. It is good because very few others cover all of it
This is the problem of people surrounding an elephant and each touching the part next to them. As they describe it, which is actually describing the elephant? The one touching the trunk, the one touching the tusks, the ears, a foot, the tail?
Burns is showing the whole elephant where you are arguing for the trunk alone.
WW2 drives this home the best. The all too popular notions is that everyone in America volunteered, far from the truth. The majority were drafted. In Germany, not everyone was a Nazi or a Jewish victim. Germans ran the full gambit from actively opposing nazism to blatantly supporting to being sent to camps to every conceivable in between.
If one wants to make a show about the front, fine, I have seen a crap ton of them. I will gladly stack my military library up with anyone here. That said, I am not about to begrudge anyone that wants to present the home front with the military front. I had relatives in the Revolution, Civil, WW2, and Vietnam that served and relatives that didn't. I don't see any logical reason to object to learning about all their lives. To see the entire elephant.
Did Ken give credit to the white Europeans for bringing diversity and inclusion to the indigenous peoples of North America? President Obama says that diversity is strength! I know diversity and inclusion worked out fabulously for the indigenous people!
I’d say yes. They addressed how it had probably never happened anywhere else anytime else that such a large group of diverse groups came together to pursue and form a new nation. (Then Whitey killed them all.)
I can’t figure out what you are trying to say here. Maybe I agree but I can’t say.
I
If relevance is not limited by time and space there is no such thing as relevance. I haven’t yet started watching Burns’ Revolution. I would hope any racial negativity is relevant.
@co-hoosier simple, he is presenting America as it existed in the Revolution. Not just heroes, not just the forgotten, the full picture. If all one wants is heroes striking heroic poses, one should skip this.
I have only seen episode 1 but didn't see racial negativity. That is unless pointing out there was slavery and women had few rights, than yes, negativity exists.
If a series on America in WW2 and detailed FDR's EO allowing the interment camps, would that be racial negativity? I am positive I like FDR far more than you, but I don't know how one does such a series and doesn't cover that. I certainly don't find it to be racially negative. It is part of our story.
No, you are wrong. You asked two. They are literally the first two sentences of the post you just referred to. My answers:@bradstevens I only asked one question. Why would those things be covered in the documentary?
(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.
The American revolution is one of the more amazing and positive events in world history. My concern is diminishing that importance with needless appeal to imperfections. I’m reminded of the discussion @bradstevens and I had about whether knowing Jefferson slept with a slave is important to understanding and appreciating the impact of the Declaration of independence.
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?
@co-hoosier it can be amazing and flawed at the same time. Washington makes military blunders in the war, yet he was the best possible person for that job. I don't get this idea that something has to be perfect for us to appreciate it.
Our founders were human, with all the frailties that implies. Much like The Beatles, they combined to create something greater than the sum of their parts. I am sure you agree there was a hell of a lot of compromise, ala, committee work. How often do we praise committees as creating perfection.
Men, ordinary men with all the foibles and prejudices that ordinary men have, created something great. I am comforted not believing they were deities, or that somehow God in some moment stepped in to endow them with godlike perfection. If these men can create a US, we can keep it going.
And we know how Adams and TJ will demonize each other, so they had no special belief they were acting in perfection. Rather they were simply doing the best they could.
Let's keep the founders humans, not gods.
Most of the Iroquois Confederacy was in current US land, most descendents of the Iroquois Confederacy are today Americans. Are we really mad that Burns put 2 lines in the series praising a group of Americans for playing a small part in shaping America? At the time of the Revolution, NO ONE is "American". So, those Iroquois are as American as the British Washington, Adams, and Jefferson. So give me an answer as to any reason mentioning this line of American heritage is bad that dies not involve their skin color.
Do some of the Iroquois Confederacy fight for the Colonies, yes. Do they still live here, yes. Do they still have descendants serving in the military, yes. So what makes them unworthy of this mention?
This goes back to a question no one tried to answer. When we blame diversity for America's ills, is it my Scots-Irish English ancestors living alongside German and Italian ancestors that is the problem diversity? Is it our Protestants living alongside Catholics and Jews that is the problem diversity? What exact groups makes us too diverse to compete with Japan or Scandinavia?
@co-hoosier it can be amazing and flawed at the same time. Washington makes military blunders in the war, yet he was the best possible person for that job. I don't get this idea that something has to be perfect for us to appreciate it.
Our founders were human, with all the frailties that implies. Much like The Beatles, they combined to create something greater than the sum of their parts. I am sure you agree there was a hell of a lot of compromise, ala, committee work. How often do we praise committees as creating perfection.
Men, ordinary men with all the foibles and prejudices that ordinary men have, created something great. I am comforted not believing they were deities, or that somehow God in some moment stepped in to endow them with godlike perfection. If these men can create a US, we can keep it going.
And we know how Adams and TJ will demonize each other, so they had no special belief they were acting in perfection. Rather they were simply doing the best they could.
Let's keep the founders humans, not gods.
Most who have read up on the battles know that Washington wasn't a great military tactician or strategist.