I'm not sure I'm reviewing the right product here. This is a boxed set of 14 disks produced by The History Channel in 1994, I think. I'm only about one third of the way through the set but the pattern is clearly enough established to warrant a comment.
First, it strikes me as thorough and accurate without being groundbreaking in any way, which is good enough for me. By "groundbreaking," I mean documentaries like Ken Burns' series on the American Civil War or Errol Morris's "The Thin Blue Line." This follows the now conventional format, alternating talking heads with portraits of the individuals whose quotes are being read aloud by the famous and near-famous, and reenactments. There are enough maps for a viewer to keep the movements and structure of things in perspective, thank God. A complicated thing like a revolution can get complicated in a hurry.
I called it "balanced" but that's surely not the right word. Maybe there isn't any right word. This was a conflict between the United States and the country that is now its closest ally -- and has been for many years. But Americans have been treated to a view of the Revolution and the war from a perspective that favors the United States. Nobody knows who said "History books are written by the winners" but no greater truth has ever been uttered. (It's why we are bombarded with books and television documentaries with titles like "The Battle of Midway" but never "The Battle of Leyte Gulf," or why the British can make a superb and sensitive movie called "Sink the Bismark" but not one called "Sink the Repulse.") It's refreshing to see the American Revolution from a more distanced point of view. (That's not exactly the right word either.) What Americans call The French and Indian War was known in Europe as The Seven Years War. Fighting the war on the North American continent to save its colonies cost England dearly, while many colonial aristocrats like George Washington were rewarded with vast tracts of pristine woodland.
Thus the various taxes, including the one which precipitated the iconic Boston Tea Party. England desperately needed the revenue and the tax itself was modest enough. As one of the historians, Fleming, observes, a man would have to drink something like a hundred gallons of tea before he paid one dollar in tax.
Then there is Thomas Jefferson, who tried unsuccessfully to include a ban on the importation of slaves when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, but had it taken out when the document was tweaked before being signed. Jefferson himself was quite a guy. Didn't like slavery but freed only a dozen or so of his hundred slaves. He took a slave lover, Sally Hemmings, and she was listed as his property, along with his cattle and land and all his other slaves. He even listed as property his own children by Sally Hemmings. To put it another way, he fathered children, raised them in poverty and illiteracy, and then allowed them to be sold.
All of this, and much more, is what I'm trying to get at by saying this is a balanced perspective on early America and its founders. I'm all for it. My background is in behavioral science, not history, and I positively relish accuracy. There is nothing more stimulating than seeing the myth stripped away from what we can determine of the facts.
At the same time, this series is pretty long and complete, although so far there hasn't been much about the influence of British philosophers like Locke, whose words were only slightly modified when they were copied into our charter documents. (Locke's inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and property" became "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.") So -- it's a bit long and it's like sitting through a two-semester course in Early American Political History 101 and 102.
Yet, I suspect most of us would benefit from watching it, if only because some of the issues of those days still resonate with us. Alexander Hamilton wanted a strong federal government with its own bank and currency and dominion over the states. Thomas Jefferson dreamed of a kind of traditional, semi-autonomous collection of rural estates free of obedience to some distant central authority, and ruled by benevolent aristocrats. I'm exaggerating, I know, but I'm doing it to make a point.
First, it strikes me as thorough and accurate without being groundbreaking in any way, which is good enough for me. By "groundbreaking," I mean documentaries like Ken Burns' series on the American Civil War or Errol Morris's "The Thin Blue Line." This follows the now conventional format, alternating talking heads with portraits of the individuals whose quotes are being read aloud by the famous and near-famous, and reenactments. There are enough maps for a viewer to keep the movements and structure of things in perspective, thank God. A complicated thing like a revolution can get complicated in a hurry.
I called it "balanced" but that's surely not the right word. Maybe there isn't any right word. This was a conflict between the United States and the country that is now its closest ally -- and has been for many years. But Americans have been treated to a view of the Revolution and the war from a perspective that favors the United States. Nobody knows who said "History books are written by the winners" but no greater truth has ever been uttered. (It's why we are bombarded with books and television documentaries with titles like "The Battle of Midway" but never "The Battle of Leyte Gulf," or why the British can make a superb and sensitive movie called "Sink the Bismark" but not one called "Sink the Repulse.") It's refreshing to see the American Revolution from a more distanced point of view. (That's not exactly the right word either.) What Americans call The French and Indian War was known in Europe as The Seven Years War. Fighting the war on the North American continent to save its colonies cost England dearly, while many colonial aristocrats like George Washington were rewarded with vast tracts of pristine woodland.
Thus the various taxes, including the one which precipitated the iconic Boston Tea Party. England desperately needed the revenue and the tax itself was modest enough. As one of the historians, Fleming, observes, a man would have to drink something like a hundred gallons of tea before he paid one dollar in tax.
Then there is Thomas Jefferson, who tried unsuccessfully to include a ban on the importation of slaves when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, but had it taken out when the document was tweaked before being signed. Jefferson himself was quite a guy. Didn't like slavery but freed only a dozen or so of his hundred slaves. He took a slave lover, Sally Hemmings, and she was listed as his property, along with his cattle and land and all his other slaves. He even listed as property his own children by Sally Hemmings. To put it another way, he fathered children, raised them in poverty and illiteracy, and then allowed them to be sold.
All of this, and much more, is what I'm trying to get at by saying this is a balanced perspective on early America and its founders. I'm all for it. My background is in behavioral science, not history, and I positively relish accuracy. There is nothing more stimulating than seeing the myth stripped away from what we can determine of the facts.
At the same time, this series is pretty long and complete, although so far there hasn't been much about the influence of British philosophers like Locke, whose words were only slightly modified when they were copied into our charter documents. (Locke's inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and property" became "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.") So -- it's a bit long and it's like sitting through a two-semester course in Early American Political History 101 and 102.
Yet, I suspect most of us would benefit from watching it, if only because some of the issues of those days still resonate with us. Alexander Hamilton wanted a strong federal government with its own bank and currency and dominion over the states. Thomas Jefferson dreamed of a kind of traditional, semi-autonomous collection of rural estates free of obedience to some distant central authority, and ruled by benevolent aristocrats. I'm exaggerating, I know, but I'm doing it to make a point.
