TresPuertas said:

---

One and a half episodes in:

I know this is a neutral forum, but anyone claiming this isn't agenda driven is not being truthful. But its Burns, so you should be expecting it. It doesn't take away from the experience much, but is merely a minor frustration.

That said, when they focus on the actual battles and conflicts so far its been great. The retelling of Bunker Hill/Breeds Hill was really well done. Can't wait to see more of the details behind the battles.

---

Macarthur said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

Less than 3 minutes into the Ken Burns documentary on the American Revolution, and we get:

1. White people are bad.

2. Native Americans had a centuries-old democracy before British colonists arrived.

3. Benjamin Franklin copied the Native American blueprint. pic.twitter.com/fyx0CHYyQy

— Adam Johnston (@adamkjohnston) November 19, 2025

---

Haha yeah I am going to fact check that part about Benjamin Franklin learning about democracy from the Iraquois. It was probably their example, and not books like Plato's "The Republic" and other writings that influenced the founders to choose their form of government.

It's no wonder there seems to be an increasing trend of people believing that whites have never contributed anything to any society and that everything was either stolen, ripped off or built by "people of color". Wish we could just get facts straight up, but I fear it will only get worse. Academic fields like History are increasingly comprised of die hard devout progressives...Ken Burns is a right winger by comparison to many "historians" coming up.

Basically, we won't be able to trust anything in 10 yrs or less.

---

Well, he's projecting on #1, but 2 and 3 are 100% correct. Adam is acting like a snowflake.

---

Hey Nav said:

---

Ep 1 was tonight. Following episodes the next 5 nights.

I realize the purists on the Politics forum will give it a thumbs down, because it's... Ken Burns, but I thoroughly enjoyed this. Will continue to watch.

---

EclipseAg said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

Haven't watched it yet but I heard they called the Americans enslavers but completely glossed over who was doing the actual enslaving across the pond.

---

There is a clear effort to avoid using the terms "slave/slaves" and "slave owners" in favor of "enslaved people" and "enslavers," which is unnecessary. But every now and then, one of the historians slips up and uses the older terms and they leave it in.

It's a typical Ken Burns/PBS documentary. Really good at the details and a fascinating watch, but with obvious framing.

---

Quad Dog said:

---

I've notified in this series at least enslaved is almost always used as an adjective to describe the people. Often to differentiate between enslaved Caribbean people vs. enslaved New England people . It does seem to go out of its way to do so.

For better or worse. Enslaved vs. slaved is a modern thing to not use the word slave to entirely define a human being. That enslaved is a condition they have, and being a slave does not define their entirety.

---

Drunken Overseas Bettor said:

---

Frok said:

---

I loved the Ashokan Farewell song from The Civil War series.

---

?

---

surfandturfsbisa96 said:

---

Head Ninja In Charge said:

---

RogerFurlong said:

---

The same Ken Burns that trashed Ty Cobb based on rumors from a rando after he died with no evidence? Say it ain't so. He makes great documentaries that fit his agenda but aren't necessarily accurate. Highly entertaining but that's about it.

---

Open to all opinions and current temps right now but hang on one damn second - are we saying now, that Ty Cobb was a cool dude? Like really, is that where we repainting history? Ty Cobb, Ty Cobb?

---

I don't think anyone is saying Ty Cobb was a cool dude. He had a temper and was insecure. But many of the stories and rumors about his racism were fabricated and have just been parroted by people who don't want to do the research or enjoy having a dart board.

---

Quad Dog said:

---

The first episode and second (all I've watched so far) more than once compares the American British colonies in rebellion to the Caribbean British colonies that weren't in rebellion. Often the amount of enslaved people in one place vs the other is given as a reason that one location rebelled but the other did not, or the amount of profit gained by England in one colony vs. another. The amount of profit is correlated to the percentage of slaves living in one colony.

Massachusetts is declared to be the least profitable because it has the least slaves, and therefore less of a priority and less British presence, and thus a hot bed for rebellion. Compared to Jamaica with the most profit, most slaves, highest priority, and a larger British presence because of slave uprisings.

---

YouBet said:

---

EclipseAg said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

Haven't watched it yet but I heard they called the Americans enslavers but completely glossed over who was doing the actual enslaving across the pond.

---

There is a clear effort to avoid using the terms "slave/slaves" and "slave owners" in favor of "enslaved people" and "enslavers," which is unnecessary. But every now and then, one of the historians slips up and uses the older terms and they leave it in.

It's a typical Ken Burns/PBS documentary. Really good at the details and a fascinating watch, but with obvious framing.

---

So when did these terms change and why?

---

YouBet said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

The first episode and second (all I've watched so far) more than once compares the American British colonies in rebellion to the Caribbean British colonies that weren't in rebellion. Often the amount of enslaved people in one place vs the other is given as a reason that one location rebelled but the other did not, or the amount of profit gained by England in one colony vs. another. The amount of profit is correlated to the percentage of slaves living in one colony.

Massachusetts is declared to be the least profitable because it has the least slaves, and therefore less of a priority and less British presence, and thus a hot bed for rebellion. Compared to Jamaica with the most profit, most slaves, highest priority, and a larger British presence because of slave uprisings.

---

Ah, so I think you are saying they mean enslaved black people in the Caribbean vs US subjects of the crown. Latter being whites under the thumb of England but not slaves per se. I thought you meant they were comparing Africans against Africans in both territories both of whom were enslaved.

---

EclipseAg said:

---

YouBet said:

---

EclipseAg said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

Haven't watched it yet but I heard they called the Americans enslavers but completely glossed over who was doing the actual enslaving across the pond.

---

There is a clear effort to avoid using the terms "slave/slaves" and "slave owners" in favor of "enslaved people" and "enslavers," which is unnecessary. But every now and then, one of the historians slips up and uses the older terms and they leave it in.

It's a typical Ken Burns/PBS documentary. Really good at the details and a fascinating watch, but with obvious framing.

---

So when did these terms change and why?

---

Academics, surely. You can see them all nodding when someone says "The term 'slaves' defines the person by someone else's actions'."

---

Quad Dog said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

The first episode and second (all I've watched so far) more than once compares the American British colonies in rebellion to the Caribbean British colonies that weren't in rebellion. Often the amount of enslaved people in one place vs the other is given as a reason that one location rebelled but the other did not, or the amount of profit gained by England in one colony vs. another. The amount of profit is correlated to the percentage of slaves living in one colony.

Massachusetts is declared to be the least profitable because it has the least slaves, and therefore less of a priority and less British presence, and thus a hot bed for rebellion. Compared to Jamaica with the most profit, most slaves, highest priority, and a larger British presence because of slave uprisings.

---

Ah, so I think you are saying they mean enslaved black people in the Caribbean vs US subjects of the crown. Latter being whites under the thumb of England but not slaves per se. I thought you meant they were comparing Africans against Africans in both territories both of whom were enslaved.

---

I must be explaining it badly. Go watch the first episode to see your self. They use the noun slave and the adjective enslaved only for African slaves living in the west. The show goes out of their way to say "enslaved North Americans" or "enslaved Caribbean Islanders" instead of "North American slaves." They are comparing Africans in America vs Africans in the Caribbean. Not many comparisons are made beyond population density compared to "subjects of the Crown"

---

Macarthur said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

Less than 3 minutes into the Ken Burns documentary on the American Revolution, and we get:

1. White people are bad.

2. Native Americans had a centuries-old democracy before British colonists arrived.

3. Benjamin Franklin copied the Native American blueprint. pic.twitter.com/fyx0CHYyQy

— Adam Johnston (@adamkjohnston) November 19, 2025

---

Haha yeah I am going to fact check that part about Benjamin Franklin learning about democracy from the Iraquois. It was probably their example, and not books like Plato's "The Republic" and other writings that influenced the founders to choose their form of government.

It's no wonder there seems to be an increasing trend of people believing that whites have never contributed anything to any society and that everything was either stolen, ripped off or built by "people of color". Wish we could just get facts straight up, but I fear it will only get worse. Academic fields like History are increasingly comprised of die hard devout progressives...Ken Burns is a right winger by comparison to many "historians" coming up.

Basically, we won't be able to trust anything in 10 yrs or less.

---

Well, he's projecting on #1, but 2 and 3 are 100% correct. Adam is acting like a snowflake.

---

The Collective said:

---

This thread had so much potential, and now it is coming together exactly as I believed it would.

---