I haven’t started yet, but I plan to. I love his documentaries.
Where (how?) are you watching?
1 Like
3 Likes
Thanks!
PBS Documentaries channel on Prime. It is not Prime by the way.
The first episode was well-produced but seemed pretty slanted towards Native Americans in my view, painting the Iroquois as an enlightened society while barely covering all of their wars, their plunder, their enslavement of other tribes, etc.
This is why I favor academic history rooted in sources of higher reliability than oral storytelling, inference, putting history into a Marxist oppressor/victim framework, and outright conjecture. This documentary seems to be very similar in its narrative to Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of The United States, which no serious academics view as an academic achievement or a reliable American history textbook. I didn’t pick up on any Zinn-level falsehoods in Burns’s documentary, but it definitely shares the goal of advancing an oppressor/victim framework along modern Marxist lines of thought.
I really wouldn’t expect anything else from PBS in 2025, but I’ll probably still finish the series. It is factual, even if it doesn’t paint the more complete picture I’d like to see while obviously catering to a PBS audience.
I found it interesting, toward the end of Episode One how the colonists set up their own form of home style justice, complete with “secret police”, etc. Not something I ran across in my American Revolution class.
It definitely was interesting and well-done, and Marxist critiques and adjacent lines of thinking can definitely reveal interesting rabbit holes that may have been previously overlooked. Those lines of thinking are also pervasive in modern academia, so it isn’t surprising to get a whiff of them here. You can’t really make a documentary like this without some kind of bias, and I’m unsurprised it caters to the actual PBS audience.
It certainly isn’t in-your-face 2025 levels of woke. The first episode just struck me as trying to tell the same narrative Howard Zinn did in his book, but actually getting their facts right.
I don’t think it’s bad history like Zinn’s book definitely is, just that it is history presented how PBS donors would like to view it.
To use a comparison of one of the recent books I read, it is more similar to Shirer’s Rise and Fall of The Third Reich than it is to Zitelman’s Hitler’s National Socialism, which isn’t surprising for a documentary catering to broad audiences. The former was a much more interesting read but relied on less reliable sources to tell a story, while Zitelman was more interested in sticking to the facts and analyzing the well-documented information that was available to him without “filling in the blanks” with conjecture.
I’m also only one episode in at the moment. Maybe we’ll learn about 18th century genderfluid furry boy contributions to Sioux resistance down the line, but I doubt that kind of stuff will make its way into a Burns documentary.
1 Like
I could check it at some point. I haven’t really never dwelled deep in to the pre-1900s US history. Sure, I know the basics, but it’s not my expertise.
I would actually recommend it to foreigners over most other US history documentaries I’ve seen, even though I have my gripes with episode 1. It is factual and well-done, especially compared to any other documentaries I’ve seen that tackle the subject. Burns is very good at making documentaries and you’ll get the gist of the most important stuff from watching it.
1 Like
Love the fat electrician’s take on historical battles more than anyone. His hate for MacArthur is also funny but pretty justified
I really like Ken Burns. Not only did I learn a lot about the American Civil War, (Expansion to) The West, Vietnam, Franklin and the Roosevelts, and parts of WW2 (from 1941-45), but it deepened my appreciation of both baseball and jazz, and gave me a new liking for old country music.
Haven’t yet watched the new one. I’m watching Pluribus, but so far that is mainly teaching me about zombie etiquette.
Always important to understand. Never know when that information might come in handy.
I’m through 3 episodes. I really think he glazed over some awesome characters of the war. But I understand it’s limited in run time. However, some times the boo hoo indian bullshit gets on my nerves. This ecological, peaceful native fallacy is still hanging on for dear life.
I cannot wait to see saratoga. Growing up 5 minutes from the battlefield im a bit of a supernerd on the topic.
Finished the new ken burns doc. I think overall it was very good, especially for your average viewer. The history nerd in me really wanted some more details around particular battles and characters of the war.
Good: I loved that they showed the actual battlegrounds. They were also open about Washington not being a very good battle commander, which many try to downplay. They gave Nathaniel Greene his due.
Less than good: could have spent more time on key battles. I think some of the Indian stuff was overstated in importance, or maybe I just hated the tone it was presented in. Daniel morgan, Francis Marion, Philip Schuyler and others I felt could have been talked about more.
Again, being a nerd for the topic it’s hard to not want more, but for the average viewer it was well done.
2 Likes
These days, the average viewer might be a little less than average. I am looking forward to watching this.
1 Like
Somewhere in storage I have a 3-vhs collection of The Learning Channel’s American Revolution narrated by Charles Kurralt. Two episodes per tape. I watched it a bunch in the sports TV lull between the end of football playoffs and baseball.
This was before TLC became a stupid freak show.
1 Like
I don’t understand why we can’t get a big budget revolution movie. Doesn’t have to be grand in scope and tell the whole story. There’s so many incredible stories and characters. A stand alone movie about Kings mountain, burgoynes expedition, Benedict Arnold, endless possibilities. We got the patriot 20 years ago, and though somewhat entertaining, is just horrible history.
1 Like
Good question. The Hamilton musical did really well so there’d presumably be an audience.
There’s been a recent trend of “anti hero” or “villain’s side” movies.
Knowing movie studios and current consumer preferences, a movie with Benedict Arnold or some other loyalist as the protagonist showing the “other” side of the story, intertwined with needless, sappy, loosely historically based romantic subplots would do better than the kind of historical film you’re probably looking for.
1 Like
A stand alone Arnold film would definitely fit that mold. The guy was an absolute beast before becoming a traitor. Raiding Ticonderoga, a crazy naval battle on lake Champlain, invading Canada and attacking quebec in a blizzard, disobeying your commander to effectively win the battle of Saratoga. And you can easily see his side and make an audience empathize with him. He did get fucked over. It really only lacks a romance and climactic finish, but Hollywood would just add that. Okay you’ve convinced me. Let’s get this pitch to a studio!
2 Likes