Heading into this new Ken Burns series focusing on the American Revolution, I was fairly excited. After all, I had seen many of his previous documentary series, including the Civil War and the American West. And they tended to be excellent.
Yet, it took all of maybe five minutes, tops, for me to have a real problem with this particular Burns documentary. Something was said to frame this focus on the American Revolution which hardly seemed to me to be based on facts, but opinion. Specifically, a political opinion which leads to a frankly tiresome and highly repetitive Americentrist narrative.
Here is what was said that really bothered me, and basically immediately soured my viewing experience and limited just how engaged I would be:
"The American Revolution is the most important, consequential in history."
Yikes, I thought to myself. Right away, it felt like that set the tone. This was absolutely a viewpoint where the United States is, for all intents and purposes, the center of the world, or even the known universe. And all events historical anywhere else in the world are on hold until whatever happens here, within our sacred borders, transpires. The French Revolution, the Haitian Revolution, the revolutions in Latin America, the Russian Revolution, all on hold until the outcome of what happens here in the United States finally unfolds, and enlightenment can be brought to the rest of the world.
Maybe that sounds like an exaggeration, but I don't think so. After all, having lived her in the greater New York metropolitan area for the vast majority of my life, I have heard such absolute opinions and value judgements passed off as factual all of my life. Things like "this is the greatest country in the world" and New York is the "greatest city in the world." I'm not even sure why it seems like Americans - and this is not relegated to merely left or right, or red versus blue, because they both tend to be guilty of this - tend to feel a need to be recognized as "the greatest" or the "most important." How do they not understand that the rest of the world grows tired of Americans systematically assuming that what happens here is more important than what happens anywhere else in the world?
And now, we have a supposedly learned, enlightened historical documentary movie maker who is doubling down and making the official argument on his latest documentary that the American Revolution was the "most consequential revolution" in human history? At the time, the thirteen colonies were a rural backwater. The events that transpired here had very limited impact on most of the rest of the world. That was why the French Revolution, which was obviously in Europe in the equivalent of a superpower and was in Europe, clearly had more of a profound and immediate impact on the rest of Europe than did the American Revolution. Yet such nuances are not taken into account when you try to pass off as undisputable fact something like the American Revolution being the "most consequential revolution" in history. It feels more like a politically-driven rallying cry to me. Or to put it another way, it smacks of propaganda.
Frankly, I expected, and certainly at least hoped for, better from Ken Burns. But I was wrong. This feels like a stain on his reputation that will not soon be removed, if ever.
I watched the rest of the first episode, but with significantly less interest than I had imagined. After all, I was one of those people who had been looking forward to this. And it felt ruined, because this supposed documentary began to feel a lot more like propaganda than an actual objective exploration of real history.
The American Revolution was more consequential than every other revolution in history, says the prominent American documentary movie maker who sure seems to focus exclusively on American history to the exclusion of every other corner of the world.
This smacks of American supremacy. It echoes empty slogans that politicians have used in the past, such as when Reagan said that the United States was the "shining city on the hill" that the rest of the world looked up to. Or when other politicians have suggested that this is "the greatest country in the world," or that we are "God's country," or how we are the "leaders of the free world." This focus on American exceptionalism at a time when the United States looks anything but exceptional to pretty much the entire rest of the world is more than a little stale. It feels downright like a line spoken by some polished politician lacking honesty and integrity, but outright pushing a narrow and untrustworthy agenda.
How hugely disappointing.
It seems clear that Ken Burns has an agenda here. I was just hoping for something more honest and objective. Less opinionated by someone who clearly seems to side with American exceptionalism when it comes to history. I had heard Burns suggest such things in the past, but was willing to give him a shot with this particular documentary. But as soon as he tried to pass off what was clearly his opinion as somehow fact, my interest diminished to the point where it became almost non-existent. I had intended to watch the entire series, yet never could muster the will to watch the second episode or beyond, fearing that there would still be more propaganda.
Not being able to stomach even trying to watch the second episode, yet having been excited to learn and possibly discuss the American Revolution - a subject which has always fascinated me - I searched for others who possibly felt as disillusioned and, frankly, betrayed, as I felt.
And I found this video, where a historian quickly sums up some of the major, defining problems with this latest Ken Burns documentary.
This is from a historian named Tad Stormer. And he made some very relevant points, in my opinion. He voiced my own disillusionment, suggesting that this was done in the "same nationalist framework" as what passed for history back in the 1950's and 1960's. Sure, there was mention of slavery and "others," which might seem like it lends this documentary more legitimacy and a modern feel. However, he rightly points out that their stories and voices were heard and mentioned "only insofar as they acknowledge the mainstream patriot story."
That sounds about right. Again, my disappointment stems from having expected much more from Ken Burns. However, that is a mistake which, after this, I will likely not soon be making again. The worst thing about all of this is that now, it makes me wonder if the other documentaries by Ken Burns are as great as I remember them, or if they perhaps now warrant much closer scrutiny.
Very disappointing.
Ken Burns’ American Revolution is 1950s History for 2026
No comments:
Post a Comment