Posted on 12/02/2025 7:02:01 AM PST by Sir_Humphrey
Ken Burns has set himself the impossible task of retelling a national origin story that all Americans will embrace as their own. He began work on the resulting six-part, twelve-hour series, The American Revolution, nearly a decade ago, just as the so-called Great Awokening got going. The years 2015-2025 have been energizing and inspiring for culture warriors and historical polemicists. But Burns is neither. His craft consists in conveying, intelligently, artfully and respectfully, the mainstream historical consensus. And that consensus has become so politicized it no longer meaningfully exists. Burns’s earnest effort to reconjure it merely results in incoherence.
The American Revolution includes a few obvious nods to the culture wars of the past several years. We are reminded that the Patriots tore down statues, that General Washington compelled his troops to get inoculated from smallpox, and that a “handful” of women dressed as men to fight as soldiers in the war. How many women constitute a handful, the documentary does not say. (In my experience as a married father of three daughters, one is enough.)
(Excerpt) Read more at compactmag.com ...
Burns is an America hating traitor. I despise that little prick
With the dilution of academic standards and the disintegration of history as a respectable discipline, the trap of ‘presentism’ seems no longer avoidable.
The idea that Burns is not a polemicist is not really accurate. Yes, he is absolutely amazing and he tells much straightforward history, in an exceptionally compelling way. But he’s absolutely a raving communist who if he can find a way to politicize and event, episode, era, etc. in a way which fits with his worldview, he will pounce - and when he does, he tends to lose any nuance. He can’t help himself.
The show is well produced, but not accurate.
But I liked some of the individual factoids Burns presented (i.e. Sherman's march to the sea in late 1864 was timed to take advantage of the late autumn crop season for the logistics of feeding his troops). So if you have the mental self-discipline of ignoring how Burns wants you to feel about heroes and villains, and you pay attention to the more verifiable details, it's good.
The series has no Shelby Foote to save it from being a bag of leftist wind!
I prefer Newt Gingrich’s books.
I watched the entire series. Twice. Just as I figured comrade Burns turned the story of the revolution into a repeat of the 1619 joke. A disproportional amount of time was given to Indians and slaves when they were minor bit players. In the very last segment, one of his historians accidently revealed the absolute truth: slavery was not an issue before the war but became one after. Comrade Burns is just another Howard Zinn Marxist miseducating America. Damn him.
His Civil War series was great, his baseball series was decent, and everything else has been junk. His baseball documentary was saved by the commentary of Buck O’Neil who might have been the only player excluded from mlb by the racial barrier who could discuss Negro League baseball without a chip-on-the-shoulder bitterness.
Adam Rowe’s last sentence is appropriate-—
“”””On the approach of 250 years and counting, the story of our Revolution is not over.””””
Ken Burns released his historical narrative early in order to convince the US citizenry that his story is the true story.
In the next 7 months there will be many other historians who will refute Burns and give Americans a true story of why we celebrate July 4th for the last 250 years.
Bkmk
“”””A disproportional amount of time was given to Indians and slaves when they were minor bit players.”””
That was my viewpoint as well. Additionally, I noted the all too many snarky woke comments by so-called historians.
One of my favorites!
Huh?
Slavery was indeed an issue before the war in 1776. All evidence shows that it was the American colonists who were on the right side of history, and it was the Empire trying to further advance plantation society.
Also an aspiring Paul Mitchell hair model.
I was trying to think of a comment about the series, but you nailed it.
I am at episode 4 completed.
Each episode is 2 hours long. Slavery and Indians have been mentioned, but to call their attention something like “disproportionate amount of time” is absurd.
Slavery existed. It was examined and presented. And I put a clock on it. It occupied about 90 seconds out of 2 hours and in some episodes 0 seconds out of 2 hours.
There are guys watching these episodes who have primed themselves to be outraged and after they see the 90 seconds or so outraged that their rage consumes 20 minutes and they miss 20 minutes of very interesting detail about the battles.
I have noted here on FR people raging about Ken Burns and this particular work. The mathematics do not support them.
I just completed episode 4 and I don’t think it was mentioned at all and all 2 hours. Take all of the episodes and compute all of the minutes and then examine how many of those minutes were devoted to the reality of slavery and taking land from Indians. You’re going to find it’s far less than 10%.
In the most recent episode I thought the most interesting part was something I’d never heard of before. And probably for good reason because it’s a disquieting item, specifically, the rape of women by British soldiers. There seem to be an emphasis on those women who were wives of men who had gone off to join Washington. Though I don’t think that was specifically said. I don’t think the British soldiers did any sort of an interview before they started their rape process. And then afterwards they would take all of the food and provisions in the house and essentially guaranteed starvation of the woman and her children as winter approached.
You miss that if you are raging about mention of slavery in less than 10% of the minutes of the entire series.
The parallels between modern journalists and modern historians makes them both near copies of each other.
I am glad more people are becoming aware of this fact. There is a large body of people who challenge the threat from progressive journalists.
Almost nobody (yet) challenges the threat from progressive historians. It’s slowly changing, and I’m encouraged by it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.