Sounds like a good reason to pass on it, sadly. The current obsession with here and now race and class issues has to stop, because it leads to societal suicide. I have a book from my Great-Great Grandfather of Patriotic Devotions from his time in the Ohio Senate, and it is primarily about how to encourage those beneficial feelings of faith in our society.
George Washington was one of those Great Men who humanity turns on. He held an army together long enough for supplies to come from France by force of personality. Without him, the whole Revolution falls apart. The ideas that it came from do not have the same force without the armed men behind it.
And then, not once, but twice, he sets power aside and returns to Mount Vernon. Any people would be proud to have that happen once, but the same man twice, and making it a deep custom quickly? That makes him shine through the ages.
They do talk about the enlightenment. I'm not sure how you missed that? There is extensive time given over to Thomas Paine and the Declaration in particular. And I think so far it's pretty fair to GW, frankly. There was a historian (I forget who) who basically says "everyone has their flaws." I thought it did a good job of bringing up present-day critiques of GW, acknowledging them, but moving on and not letting that diminish his greatness. If we can't acknowledge that some of our greatest figures could still be morally flawed, then we have a problem. I also thought the treatment of the role of American Indians and black people was not unreasonable. Look, I'm a conservative guy -- but I guess maybe woke-sensitivity is just in the eye of the beholder. You don't have to like or agree with everything in the series to find it interesting. To me, it was worth watching, flaws and all.
Agree. I'm conservative, and the descendant of a patriot from that era. I don't find it off-putting so far, to be honest. Things I wish he covered or covered differently? Sure. Is he showing a complexity of history? Also sure. Would I describe the first two episodes as Woke? Maybe I don't know know that word means, but broadly, no.
The unwitnessed citation that GW fired the first shot in the Seven Years war was over the top, when there was no mention of “first shot” identifying efforts in Boston or Lexington. As for the land speculation, GW did speculate to be sure, but it was within the remit of the royal colony charter.
I have visited de Jumonville Glen outside Pittsburgh where that happened. It wasn't him personally but a unit under his command bushwhacked a French patrol out of Fort Duquesne. The wounded French commander was attempting to negotiate with Washington when an Indian leader who was accompanying GW (but not under command) bashed his head in. The British Foreign Minister's comment was "A volley fired by a young Virginian in the backwoods of America set the world on fire.”
Great detail. I really enjoyed Autumn of the Black Snake, a great book on the period. I do not recall anything about GW instigating hostilities. Thanks for the insight.
The dead French officer was the younger brother of the commander of Ft. Duquesne who was not amused. His command besieged Washington at Ft. Necessity, forcing a surrender. Washington, who didn't speak French, was ill-served or perhaps betrayed by an interpreter signed a document saying he had ordered an execution. The British later used this to accuse him of a war crime. The French didn't seem to care.
Back in 2007, I was on a combined visit to my mother and daughter, leaf peeping trip and visiting Civil War battlefields I hadn't seen yet. Passing through PA, I realized that Columbus Day was nigh and Pittsburgh was full of Italians and went to ground for the weekend. The first battle of two world-wide wars happened to be within 50 miles of my campsite so I visited.
Your comment ignores the review's prime complaint. Looking at history through the lens of "Presentism". I may have missed the reference, but I've heard nothing about the clear risks the Founders took in signing their names. As they acknowledged, had the revolt failed they and likely all of their family members would have been executed and their lands and assets conveyed to the Crown. If "Presentism" is worthwhile, what leaders has our country had since the Founding who would have taken the risk the Founders did. In an interview the week prior Burns noted that Washington was possibly the wealthiest man in the colonies and yet spent almost 7 years of his life living in a tent with his army in the field. And then Burns questioned how many European men of similar stature would have even considered doing that in the in the later part of the 18th century.
I am not sure whether the series is looking at it through "presentism" or not. But I will say that the series also makes quite clear the founders took considerable risk and emphasizes in the discussion of the Declaration the mutual pledge of lives, fortunes and sacred honor. So, I'm not sure what else you want?
there is nothing unique about their suffering. We've seen similar suffering through the millenia. Look at Attila, the Goths, the Mongols, Muslim armies, African tribes capturing members of other tribes to sell them to others.
That is true, You have to talk about the Red stick war and The Battle at Fort Mims, if you talk about the Battle of Horseshoe bend. Calling it how it is. One is called a massacre the other a victory. Both were the same.
Concur. Burns neither whitewashed nor tarred and feathered any historical character or group. I'm basically a good person--if I did something sh*tty, what reason would I have to get all huffy and defensive if someone mentions it? If it's true, it's true. More mature to own it. Washington et al were flawed, had contradictions, and so on. So what? It just means he was a fallible human being. More interesting and honest than just sanitizing the man. Burns also heaped praise on Washington--give it due. JH's comment on flawed greatness is right on the money. I, too, am a conservative, and I think we should be able to present history and characters "with the hide and hair left on" as just part of the record. I don't think Burns was grinding a PC or DEI axe, just saying here's what happened. Could it make us squirm? Yeah. Again, so what? PS--I am a strong fan of CDR S's work, comments and insight. My position here in no way diminishes his greatness!
There was also an ominous news to the committees of correspondence, inspection and safety. They represented as much more draconian than they were. They were extensions of systems set during the British rule and became defacto government when loyalists and crown agents fled.
I think the program goes out of its way to incorporate blacks and native Americans into the storyline—it feels forced and exaggerated.
The people who made the Revolution happen—from the philosophers to the intellectuals to the representatives to the activists to the military leaders—were basically exclusively white men. The vast majority who fought and died were white men.
Good God man...can you be any more factually inaccurate? The people who made the Revolution happen INCLUDED the thousands of slaves who were providing GW and half the other founding fathers with sustenance while they were leading the revolution. You realize GW's and TJ's wealth came directly from the slaves they owned right? They were running their plantations while they were out founding the nation. Are they not entitled to be recognized for their descendants who are now free? Maybe Burns could have represented that better but I doubt it would change your opinion that white people EXCLUSIVELY made it happen. It's a laughably inaccurate assessment. - Signed a white man directly descended from POOR Rev War vets.
I watch his Civil War series every few years (I have the DVDs), that was from the 90s and I'm only now noticing certain woke aspects (he'd never let Shelby Foote near it if he did it today) I also rewatch his Baseball series, which is also a couple of decades old and therefore not especially woke. It's a shame, but not surprising, that he's gone off the woke deep end; like a fish in the ocean, he has no idea what water is.
Then you need to read Foote's three volume set "The Civil War". It is the best history I've read on the subject. It covers the lead up to the War and then goes day by day for the entire four years. It's breathtaking in it's scope. Around 2500 pages, small type, single spaced, large volumes, intimidating yet readable.
I've read Shelby Foote's three-volume history of the Civil War twice. Once in 1991 and for a second time in 2011. It's on my shelf next to Robert Caro's multi-volume biography of Lyndon Johnson. (I am still waiting for the last volume of Caro's LBJ biography. Hey Bob, where is it? Please get on the stick and get it out.)
Maybe I'll read Foote's Civil War set for a third time if I run out of other things to do.
Anyway, Foote's three-volume set is more a narrative written in novelist writing style than it is a historian's academic analysis of the the causes of the Civil War. A good account of Shelby Foote's efforts in writing the narrative is included in this Wikipedia article, as is a balanced discussion of his opinions about the Civil War versus those of his critics.
For myself, after much reading about the topic, my own opinion is that slavery does not end in America except through a bloody civil war which has several interacting cultural, political, and economic causes, among which slavery is one of the most important of those several interacting causes.
The scholarship of the sixties/Centennial historians has been updated by new generations of authors who now have access to a great deal of digitized primary source material. The opinions of the Centennial authors don't hold up so well IMO.
As someone with an engineering bent I enjoy some of the recent titles that dig deeply into the mechanics of tactics, organization, and equipment. A big part is the dispelling of the "first modern war" idea.
if you watch "The West" you'll also notice certain woke aspects. The guy's a New Hampshire liberal, always has been. To anticipate a non-woke product now after decades of being consistent is a fool's errand.
I've also watched the first two episodes because my business is writing fictional novels about the late colonial period and the Revolution and I can expect to get questions about it at seminars and book signings.. I more than agree with the Commander's assessment. I've had no appetite for Burns documentaries starting with his version of the Civil War, which focused on emotional, weepy letters and statements of contemporary witnesses rather than explaining what actually happened. The promo's for this series say its intention is to present the revolution warts and all, as opposed to the romanticized traditional version, which is liberal speak for academic, leftist revisionist history.
I, personally, prefer the memoirs of the otherwise unknown soldiers. It provides a perspective on the subject that the grand histories do not. It becomes more personal.
That said, I got to that after reading the grand and operational histories so I knew the broader story that the memoirs took place in. They would be but "weepy letters" otherwise.
Jill, I was disappointed also. I was invited to a promo session which showed excerpts from the series, and quite frankly it was deceptive. Much of the woke/biased parts were not shown. It looked pretty good the way they presented it and I thought perhaps Burns had decided to do a straight, fact based, middle of the road presentation. But just a few minutes into the actual series, it became clear that was not the case.
I'm not changing the subject just coincidentally I was watching the musical 1776 and was struck by their brief but very intense argument about slavery so when I saw the documentary, it did feel a little bit too focused on it and I couldn't get a broad picture of everything and my wife fell asleep so now I have to block out extra time to watch what she wants to watch and also watch this I do like Ken Burns. But I think there's there was someone above that just directed all this Schmutz https://youtu.be/yk5NAeIRY4k?si=tifzk8xIZW5BTr-6
On point. I am one episode in and the reasoning for revolution seems thin at best. Even my left leaning wife found the section on tarring and feathering one sided, remarking that “didn’t the Royal Navy still keel haul people?” We’ll see if it gets better. The over emphasis on the Daughters of Liberty spinning circles seemed absurd. Like any history, you can’t take this as sole source or even established theory.
its another case of the Academic good, bad and ugly....overall, I think it just blows Burns mind that the USA is really such a fantastic creation and grand social direction and experiment..... and has been such a great success story in spite of the ugly parts....that he feels he has to present the negatives in his opinionated "special" spotlight....
Yup. I’ve been watching it, but the predictable, endless hand-wringing about the slaves and Indians gets terribly tiresome. And there’s not a whole lot of new scholarship. (TBH, the 30% losses the British took taking Breed’s Hill was a surprise)
Burns made his reputation with The Civil War…which is reminiscent of “Birth of a Nation” in being technically groundbreaking but breathtakingly bigoted. The only parts of merit were the Shelby Foote interviews.
About 30 years ago, there was a series on the War for Independence narrated by Charles Osgood - that one was pretty good.
I’m starting to think of trying my own hand at something. Cheap production values, but it would at least try to be honest.
Burns does not deal with history. He's a propagandist. He pulled the same trash with the War Between The States. His "work" is not worth the time it takes to watch it.
His JAZZ documentary is unbearable!!! Every single thing has something to do with racism or slavery! The background music is the jazz in most of the episodes.
Color me surprised... shall I show you my shocked face?
If your shocked face is anything like Sarah Hoyt's. it's been badly overworked over the past few years.
Thanks for the warning!
burns is due for the woodchipper
That would damage valuable equipment. Just dump his worthless carcass in the nearest subduction zone trench.
Sounds like a good reason to pass on it, sadly. The current obsession with here and now race and class issues has to stop, because it leads to societal suicide. I have a book from my Great-Great Grandfather of Patriotic Devotions from his time in the Ohio Senate, and it is primarily about how to encourage those beneficial feelings of faith in our society.
George Washington was one of those Great Men who humanity turns on. He held an army together long enough for supplies to come from France by force of personality. Without him, the whole Revolution falls apart. The ideas that it came from do not have the same force without the armed men behind it.
And then, not once, but twice, he sets power aside and returns to Mount Vernon. Any people would be proud to have that happen once, but the same man twice, and making it a deep custom quickly? That makes him shine through the ages.
George III said Washington was the world's greatest man for giving up power.
Burns is a Marxist stain on our Republic
He wasn't always like that, but has become a shill for everything Leftist.
It's been a mighty long time since he was worth watching.
Just finished the first of Nathaniel Philbrick's Trilogy; pretty good.
Not familiar with him. Which books have you read?
Bunker Hill: a City, a Siege, a Revolution. New York: Viking, 2013
Valiant Ambition: George Washington, Benedict Arnold, and the Fate of the American Revolution New York: Viking, 2016
In the Hurricane's Eye: The Genius of George Washington and the Victory at Yorktown, 2018
Thanks. On my reading list.
Thanks for beating me to the reply.
ALWAYS on the recommended list is David Hackett Fischer
I'm sure he's always been that, he just hid it. He's been successful enough now that he doesn't bother any loner.
They do talk about the enlightenment. I'm not sure how you missed that? There is extensive time given over to Thomas Paine and the Declaration in particular. And I think so far it's pretty fair to GW, frankly. There was a historian (I forget who) who basically says "everyone has their flaws." I thought it did a good job of bringing up present-day critiques of GW, acknowledging them, but moving on and not letting that diminish his greatness. If we can't acknowledge that some of our greatest figures could still be morally flawed, then we have a problem. I also thought the treatment of the role of American Indians and black people was not unreasonable. Look, I'm a conservative guy -- but I guess maybe woke-sensitivity is just in the eye of the beholder. You don't have to like or agree with everything in the series to find it interesting. To me, it was worth watching, flaws and all.
Agree. I'm conservative, and the descendant of a patriot from that era. I don't find it off-putting so far, to be honest. Things I wish he covered or covered differently? Sure. Is he showing a complexity of history? Also sure. Would I describe the first two episodes as Woke? Maybe I don't know know that word means, but broadly, no.
The unwitnessed citation that GW fired the first shot in the Seven Years war was over the top, when there was no mention of “first shot” identifying efforts in Boston or Lexington. As for the land speculation, GW did speculate to be sure, but it was within the remit of the royal colony charter.
You can cite me for the 1st shot in the Seven Years War. Though to be fair, it didn't seem like it at the time.
I have visited de Jumonville Glen outside Pittsburgh where that happened. It wasn't him personally but a unit under his command bushwhacked a French patrol out of Fort Duquesne. The wounded French commander was attempting to negotiate with Washington when an Indian leader who was accompanying GW (but not under command) bashed his head in. The British Foreign Minister's comment was "A volley fired by a young Virginian in the backwoods of America set the world on fire.”
Great detail. I really enjoyed Autumn of the Black Snake, a great book on the period. I do not recall anything about GW instigating hostilities. Thanks for the insight.
The dead French officer was the younger brother of the commander of Ft. Duquesne who was not amused. His command besieged Washington at Ft. Necessity, forcing a surrender. Washington, who didn't speak French, was ill-served or perhaps betrayed by an interpreter signed a document saying he had ordered an execution. The British later used this to accuse him of a war crime. The French didn't seem to care.
Back in 2007, I was on a combined visit to my mother and daughter, leaf peeping trip and visiting Civil War battlefields I hadn't seen yet. Passing through PA, I realized that Columbus Day was nigh and Pittsburgh was full of Italians and went to ground for the weekend. The first battle of two world-wide wars happened to be within 50 miles of my campsite so I visited.
Your comment ignores the review's prime complaint. Looking at history through the lens of "Presentism". I may have missed the reference, but I've heard nothing about the clear risks the Founders took in signing their names. As they acknowledged, had the revolt failed they and likely all of their family members would have been executed and their lands and assets conveyed to the Crown. If "Presentism" is worthwhile, what leaders has our country had since the Founding who would have taken the risk the Founders did. In an interview the week prior Burns noted that Washington was possibly the wealthiest man in the colonies and yet spent almost 7 years of his life living in a tent with his army in the field. And then Burns questioned how many European men of similar stature would have even considered doing that in the in the later part of the 18th century.
I am not sure whether the series is looking at it through "presentism" or not. But I will say that the series also makes quite clear the founders took considerable risk and emphasizes in the discussion of the Declaration the mutual pledge of lives, fortunes and sacred honor. So, I'm not sure what else you want?
starting with a land acknowledgement is classic presentism as it ignores what the native Americans were really like while making them out to be saints
https://kenngividen.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-american-indians?
there is nothing unique about their suffering. We've seen similar suffering through the millenia. Look at Attila, the Goths, the Mongols, Muslim armies, African tribes capturing members of other tribes to sell them to others.
Native Americans displaced other tribes
https://kenngividen.substack.com/p/cannibalism-and-human-sacrifice-in?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396760/How-Comanche-Indians-butchered-babies-roasted-enemies-alive.html
That is true, You have to talk about the Red stick war and The Battle at Fort Mims, if you talk about the Battle of Horseshoe bend. Calling it how it is. One is called a massacre the other a victory. Both were the same.
Davie Crockett has entered the chat.
presentism is never worth while
Concur. Burns neither whitewashed nor tarred and feathered any historical character or group. I'm basically a good person--if I did something sh*tty, what reason would I have to get all huffy and defensive if someone mentions it? If it's true, it's true. More mature to own it. Washington et al were flawed, had contradictions, and so on. So what? It just means he was a fallible human being. More interesting and honest than just sanitizing the man. Burns also heaped praise on Washington--give it due. JH's comment on flawed greatness is right on the money. I, too, am a conservative, and I think we should be able to present history and characters "with the hide and hair left on" as just part of the record. I don't think Burns was grinding a PC or DEI axe, just saying here's what happened. Could it make us squirm? Yeah. Again, so what? PS--I am a strong fan of CDR S's work, comments and insight. My position here in no way diminishes his greatness!
There was also an ominous news to the committees of correspondence, inspection and safety. They represented as much more draconian than they were. They were extensions of systems set during the British rule and became defacto government when loyalists and crown agents fled.
I think the program goes out of its way to incorporate blacks and native Americans into the storyline—it feels forced and exaggerated.
The people who made the Revolution happen—from the philosophers to the intellectuals to the representatives to the activists to the military leaders—were basically exclusively white men. The vast majority who fought and died were white men.
Burns read too much Jill Lepore.
Good God man...can you be any more factually inaccurate? The people who made the Revolution happen INCLUDED the thousands of slaves who were providing GW and half the other founding fathers with sustenance while they were leading the revolution. You realize GW's and TJ's wealth came directly from the slaves they owned right? They were running their plantations while they were out founding the nation. Are they not entitled to be recognized for their descendants who are now free? Maybe Burns could have represented that better but I doubt it would change your opinion that white people EXCLUSIVELY made it happen. It's a laughably inaccurate assessment. - Signed a white man directly descended from POOR Rev War vets.
Perhaps as a follow-up posting, could Mrs. Salamander provider her review?
Sally? Sally sallies forth!
I watch his Civil War series every few years (I have the DVDs), that was from the 90s and I'm only now noticing certain woke aspects (he'd never let Shelby Foote near it if he did it today) I also rewatch his Baseball series, which is also a couple of decades old and therefore not especially woke. It's a shame, but not surprising, that he's gone off the woke deep end; like a fish in the ocean, he has no idea what water is.
A criticism of it was how much he relied on Shelby Foote!
The Foote interviews were the only parts worth watching.
It has been a long time since I watched those DVDs.
Over the years I have read a lot of Civl War history mostly military.
I have read very little Foote, find him shallow, and skewed.
For the political side I prefer Mc Pierson, early on I read Bruce Catton.
The Civil War series is part why I will not go to this new documentary.
Then you need to read Foote's three volume set "The Civil War". It is the best history I've read on the subject. It covers the lead up to the War and then goes day by day for the entire four years. It's breathtaking in it's scope. Around 2500 pages, small type, single spaced, large volumes, intimidating yet readable.
Thank you, I am retired time is very available.
I've read Shelby Foote's three-volume history of the Civil War twice. Once in 1991 and for a second time in 2011. It's on my shelf next to Robert Caro's multi-volume biography of Lyndon Johnson. (I am still waiting for the last volume of Caro's LBJ biography. Hey Bob, where is it? Please get on the stick and get it out.)
Maybe I'll read Foote's Civil War set for a third time if I run out of other things to do.
Anyway, Foote's three-volume set is more a narrative written in novelist writing style than it is a historian's academic analysis of the the causes of the Civil War. A good account of Shelby Foote's efforts in writing the narrative is included in this Wikipedia article, as is a balanced discussion of his opinions about the Civil War versus those of his critics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_Foote
For myself, after much reading about the topic, my own opinion is that slavery does not end in America except through a bloody civil war which has several interacting cultural, political, and economic causes, among which slavery is one of the most important of those several interacting causes.
The scholarship of the sixties/Centennial historians has been updated by new generations of authors who now have access to a great deal of digitized primary source material. The opinions of the Centennial authors don't hold up so well IMO.
As someone with an engineering bent I enjoy some of the recent titles that dig deeply into the mechanics of tactics, organization, and equipment. A big part is the dispelling of the "first modern war" idea.
if you watch "The West" you'll also notice certain woke aspects. The guy's a New Hampshire liberal, always has been. To anticipate a non-woke product now after decades of being consistent is a fool's errand.
Who funded the series? What are their interests?
I've also watched the first two episodes because my business is writing fictional novels about the late colonial period and the Revolution and I can expect to get questions about it at seminars and book signings.. I more than agree with the Commander's assessment. I've had no appetite for Burns documentaries starting with his version of the Civil War, which focused on emotional, weepy letters and statements of contemporary witnesses rather than explaining what actually happened. The promo's for this series say its intention is to present the revolution warts and all, as opposed to the romanticized traditional version, which is liberal speak for academic, leftist revisionist history.
Nailed it, Robert... One can describe a war via "weepy letters." But to explain it requires operational & strategic-level thinking.
I, personally, prefer the memoirs of the otherwise unknown soldiers. It provides a perspective on the subject that the grand histories do not. It becomes more personal.
That said, I got to that after reading the grand and operational histories so I knew the broader story that the memoirs took place in. They would be but "weepy letters" otherwise.
😳😓😡so sad they biased our history.. I was so excited to view a true documentary about our forefathers!
Jill, I was disappointed also. I was invited to a promo session which showed excerpts from the series, and quite frankly it was deceptive. Much of the woke/biased parts were not shown. It looked pretty good the way they presented it and I thought perhaps Burns had decided to do a straight, fact based, middle of the road presentation. But just a few minutes into the actual series, it became clear that was not the case.
So disturbing that we and our future can’t read good unbiased history. 😳🥶
Done with Burns. A shame.
I'm not changing the subject just coincidentally I was watching the musical 1776 and was struck by their brief but very intense argument about slavery so when I saw the documentary, it did feel a little bit too focused on it and I couldn't get a broad picture of everything and my wife fell asleep so now I have to block out extra time to watch what she wants to watch and also watch this I do like Ken Burns. But I think there's there was someone above that just directed all this Schmutz https://youtu.be/yk5NAeIRY4k?si=tifzk8xIZW5BTr-6
On point. I am one episode in and the reasoning for revolution seems thin at best. Even my left leaning wife found the section on tarring and feathering one sided, remarking that “didn’t the Royal Navy still keel haul people?” We’ll see if it gets better. The over emphasis on the Daughters of Liberty spinning circles seemed absurd. Like any history, you can’t take this as sole source or even established theory.
I think keel haul was a Dutch 17th century thing. The RN did hang criminals, and I've seen references to "Flogging around the fleet"
Apparently tarring and feathering dates back to Richard I in the 1100s.
its another case of the Academic good, bad and ugly....overall, I think it just blows Burns mind that the USA is really such a fantastic creation and grand social direction and experiment..... and has been such a great success story in spite of the ugly parts....that he feels he has to present the negatives in his opinionated "special" spotlight....
Yup. I’ve been watching it, but the predictable, endless hand-wringing about the slaves and Indians gets terribly tiresome. And there’s not a whole lot of new scholarship. (TBH, the 30% losses the British took taking Breed’s Hill was a surprise)
Burns made his reputation with The Civil War…which is reminiscent of “Birth of a Nation” in being technically groundbreaking but breathtakingly bigoted. The only parts of merit were the Shelby Foote interviews.
About 30 years ago, there was a series on the War for Independence narrated by Charles Osgood - that one was pretty good.
I’m starting to think of trying my own hand at something. Cheap production values, but it would at least try to be honest.
I appreciate the heads-up! I can’t stand Ken Burns work after his Civil War documentary series.
Burns does not deal with history. He's a propagandist. He pulled the same trash with the War Between The States. His "work" is not worth the time it takes to watch it.
His JAZZ documentary is unbearable!!! Every single thing has something to do with racism or slavery! The background music is the jazz in most of the episodes.