Ken Burns - Here's a little story I got to tell...

  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Destacado
KiwiFuzz2 dijo:
It feels to me like Burns got his ass chewed up for not being "diverse" enough in some previous shows, so he's setting out to make it 50% women and POCs, and while I am here for some competing narratives about history, the last 250+++ years of American history have been mostly white guys and that's how it is. They were running shit. It's right there in the contemporary history of the time.

May as well throw a few blacks into the SS if you're going to tell a story where ACKshULLY women and POCs were shaping the country the whole time.
Presiona para expandir...
I’m pretty sure the “women are the true victims of war” is one of those Hilary Clinton-isms from 2015 that they’ve been trying to rehabilitate since she lost. The entire Ukraine War kinda has proved that wrong with forced conscription, men being forced to fight long after their family fled, and you know getting killed/ maimed by man-made and woman-made mechanical terrors. That one guy throwing stun grenades into a room of old faggots and women voting themselves a raise as the war goes on is still in my mind.

Ukraine has been doing more women’s company, but it’s not quite Russia needing to mobilize women against Germany. Women also do have important rolls in the logistics of war. Unironically, cooking and cleaning save a ton of lives when you have over 100 guys living in shit conditions. Dude has TDS or a high positioned staff member who likely calls Trump some embarrassing shit like “Tangerine Tyrant”.

wtfNeedSignUp dijo:
From how people here describe him he sounds like a faggot.

He can do female Nazis or honorary Aryans like the pre-Palestinians but that would Actually cause a stir.
Presiona para expandir...
Burns really has coasted off the Civil War where like three historians carried him. I just remember hating that black chick who added fucking nothing.
 
I notice a trend among Ken Burns viewers that they really enjoy his documentaries about subjects that they know nothing about but when he does a subject they are familiar with they notice he gets a lot of details wrong.
Really makes you think.
 
millais dijo:
He has the same gay haircut in his "Gettysburg" cameo
Presiona para expandir...
I’ve seen Ken Burns in person, like three feet away, and I’m sorry, that’s a wig. Toupee tech has advanced, but a full wig on a man is always gonna squat on the head, not blending in with the terrain.

1000095162.jpg
 
Spaceman Spud dijo:
I notice a trend among Ken Burns viewers that they really enjoy his documentaries about subjects that they know nothing about but when he does a subject they are familiar with they notice he gets a lot of details wrong.
Really makes you think.
Presiona para expandir...
His series serve as good introductions to a subject, but that's because we no longer value reading books. He can't get into the detail that even a basic book on the Civil War, the history of baseball, or a biography of Teddy Roosevelt can in the 12 hours or so of his series, but he can make it more entertaining.

That said, one of the big problems I have with his series is he has nothing new to contribute and that isn't entirely his fault. Even going past his obsession with America's love affair with oppressing women and non-WASPs, especially blacks and Indians, his sources are all telling the same story because there is simply nothing new to bring to the field. Those stories have been told in multiple histories, Short of a new trove of documents like letters or journals or official correspondence showing up, there's simply nothing new to add. You're getting the same histories of the Civil War or American Revolution that are going over the same ground and have been for at least fifty years, often times with the same political slant because the writers all went to the same schools with the same professors and read the same books then. That's not to say someone couldn't write about a particular battle from a different perspective, but there are only so many ways to write about Gettysburg or Yorktown, but you keep seeing new books on those tired subjects anyway because they sell.

Let me give you an example. The vast majority of books on Gettysburg all come from the same viewpoint: that Lee made some major mistakes and the Confederates lost the battle. In 1968 Edwin Coddington wrote The Gettysburg Campaign: A Study in Command. His thesis is that it wasn't so much the Confederates lost the battle as much as the Union won the battle. It's a fine distinction, but basically the Union commanders did the right things and won. And that's been about the last new thing on the subject. We're going on sixty years since there's been anything really new on the battle, but every year someone writes another new book on the thing. And that's where these documentaries are drawing their source materials from.
 
ShapelyMutton dijo:
At somepoint I divined the knowledge that Ken Burns is a Unitarian but I have no way of knowing that it's true.
Can anyone back me up on this?
Presiona para expandir...
He did some documentary about a couple of Unitarians who helped people escape from the death camps in WW2 is about all I could find.
 
ShapelyMutton dijo:
At somepoint I divined the knowledge that Ken Burns is a Unitarian but I have no way of knowing that it's true.
Can anyone back me up on this?
Presiona para expandir...
What is your own religious background and identity?

I was born an Episcopalian and was at best a haphazard attendee. I have had a rich spiritual life that has its roots in Christianity, but I have not been afraid to explore. I find myself in the tradition of the founders—what Thomas Jefferson would call a deist, I guess—interested less in the organized forms of religion than in spiritual pursuit as a way toward the perfectibility of an imperfectible species called human beings.

 
KiwiFuzz2 dijo:
What is your own religious background and identity?

I was born an Episcopalian and was at best a haphazard attendee. I have had a rich spiritual life that has its roots in Christianity, but I have not been afraid to explore. I find myself in the tradition of the founders—what Thomas Jefferson would call a deist, I guess—interested less in the organized forms of religion than in spiritual pursuit as a way toward the perfectibility of an imperfectible species called human beings.

Presiona para expandir...
Oh so he’s a fag that hates St. Paul. Sad!
 
So the thing about calling Washington a bad general is stretching the facts to a point. His best attribute was making 13 colonies spread across cultural and geographical faultlines stop fighting one another over minutae and listen to him in a focused effort. And that’s before one thinks how brilliant the Delaware Crossing was from a tactical and morale standpoint, let alone his final push at Yorktown.

And the Loyalist fellating is not too surprising, after all most of the people in academia etc. hate the right to bear arms and anyone disagreeing with them. I fucking hate PBS.
 
RA-5C Vigilante dijo:
So the thing about calling Washington a bad general is stretching the facts to a point. His best attribute was making 13 colonies spread across cultural and geographical faultlines stop fighting one another over minutae and listen to him in a focused effort. And that’s before one thinks how brilliant the Delaware Crossing was from a tactical and morale standpoint, let alone his final push at Yorktown.

And the Loyalist fellating is not too surprising, after all most of the people in academia etc. hate the right to bear arms and anyone disagreeing with them. I fucking hate PBS.
Presiona para expandir...
Washington was a such a poor general that his strategies are still taught at every military academy today. Seriously, he knew he couldn't consistantly go toe-to-toe with the best-equipped and best-trained army on the planet on its own terms, so he didn't fight them openly unless it was absolutely necessary, at least not until Steuben trained his army and the French showed up. Even then, he basically kept the British penned up in NYC and on the coast for the duration of the war and when the British did venture forth they were cut off from their supply lines, forcing them to pillage the countryside which just turned more Americans against the king, and had to face guerilla tactics the British were completely unable to counter.

But he was a poor, poor general. Just ask Burns.
 
William Murderface dijo:
Washington was a such a poor general that his strategies are still taught at every military academy today. Seriously, he knew he couldn't consistantly go toe-to-toe with the best-equipped and best-trained army on the planet on its own terms, so he didn't fight them openly unless it was absolutely necessary, at least not until Steuben trained his army and the French showed up. Even then, he basically kept the British penned up in NYC and on the coast for the duration of the war and when the British did venture forth they were cut off from their supply lines, forcing them to pillage the countryside which just turned more Americans against the king, and had to face guerilla tactics the British were completely unable to counter.

But he was a poor, poor general. Just ask Burns.
Presiona para expandir...
Modern "history" is only about tearing down old heroes and nothing else. It explains why the field is in such dire straits.
 
augment dijo:
Prohibition is a thorough presentation on how a group of radicalized nincompoops fucked up the whole nation in ways even worse than even the civil war.
Presiona para expandir...
Abolitionists and Prohibitionists are proof that obnoxious, radical, self-righteous women are a danger to all societies regardless of era.
 
William Murderface dijo:
Washington was a such a poor general that his strategies are still taught at every military academy today. Seriously, he knew he couldn't consistantly go toe-to-toe with the best-equipped and best-trained army on the planet on its own terms, so he didn't fight them openly unless it was absolutely necessary, at least not until Steuben trained his army and the French showed up. Even then, he basically kept the British penned up in NYC and on the coast for the duration of the war and when the British did venture forth they were cut off from their supply lines, forcing them to pillage the countryside which just turned more Americans against the king, and had to face guerilla tactics the British were completely unable to counter.

But he was a poor, poor general. Just ask Burns.
Presiona para expandir...
That's funny, I actually remember that was a paper we had to write in my AP US History class in high school whether Washington was the best choice to lead the continental army.

I decided that I was going to write against him and say he wasn't the best choice but after doing some research I realized how hard it was going to be to write that so I gave up and defended the choice. Out of my class only a small minority wrote against him and I remember the teacher wasn't too impressed with the idea but wasn't graded the papers fairly.

That same class I learned about revisionist history and how it became in vogue in the middle of 20th century to attack commonly held beliefs in order to get papers out. Not to say nothing shouldn't be up for debate but its sad to see historians clutch at straws trying to attack great men who founded the US.
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo