American History
-
From the NY Times[^] (need registration) "The new nation wanted a triumph-over-hardship, God-is-on-our-side image best embodied by Washington at Valley Forge, not by a diplomat who arranged a bailout by a foreign power. If you immortalize Franklin (...) then you say we couldn't have done it without France. And so when you pick your heroes to revere, you're also picking the myth that you want to tell." Any comment ?
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral. Antoine de Saint-Exupery (1900-1944)
This is typical of how history is being approached lately. The media picks up on some formerly well known theme, and repackges it as a startling new revelation to somehow denegrate some aspect of Ameican history. There was nothing "mythical" about the American Revolution. It really happened. It *was* a triumph over hardship, and God (or whatever forces control such things) obviously was on our side. Could it have succeeded without France? Probably not. No one has ever tried to make a secret of France's significance to American Independence or the role Franklin played in acquring it. It has always been a well published fact. Every American school child learns about it. But in truth, France's participation in the actual struggle in the States was fairly limited. There were very few to no French troops in any of the significant overland campaigns of the war. There were a few a Savanna and Charleston and a siginificant number at Yorktown, but that was about all they did, aside from their Naval presence. As to Franklin, he has always been considerd on an equal stature with Washington,et.al. He was much older than the other founders and played virtually no role in our early national history, and that explains why he may not have had quite the press the others eventually received. Not some conspiracy to reformulate a "mythical" heroic American past. What utter bullshit. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
This is typical of how history is being approached lately. The media picks up on some formerly well known theme, and repackges it as a startling new revelation to somehow denegrate some aspect of Ameican history. There was nothing "mythical" about the American Revolution. It really happened. It *was* a triumph over hardship, and God (or whatever forces control such things) obviously was on our side. Could it have succeeded without France? Probably not. No one has ever tried to make a secret of France's significance to American Independence or the role Franklin played in acquring it. It has always been a well published fact. Every American school child learns about it. But in truth, France's participation in the actual struggle in the States was fairly limited. There were very few to no French troops in any of the significant overland campaigns of the war. There were a few a Savanna and Charleston and a siginificant number at Yorktown, but that was about all they did, aside from their Naval presence. As to Franklin, he has always been considerd on an equal stature with Washington,et.al. He was much older than the other founders and played virtually no role in our early national history, and that explains why he may not have had quite the press the others eventually received. Not some conspiracy to reformulate a "mythical" heroic American past. What utter bullshit. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Thx for these explanations. :) (My point was less about France intervention than about B. Franklin: he's here one of the most known of the characters of the american pre-history, probably because he was ambassador in France. However, it seems he do[es]n't have the same success with Americans, who generally refer more to Washington or Jefferson as "heroes")
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral. Antoine de Saint-Exupery (1900-1944)
-
Thx for these explanations. :) (My point was less about France intervention than about B. Franklin: he's here one of the most known of the characters of the american pre-history, probably because he was ambassador in France. However, it seems he do[es]n't have the same success with Americans, who generally refer more to Washington or Jefferson as "heroes")
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral. Antoine de Saint-Exupery (1900-1944)
KaЯl wrote: However, it seems he don't have the same success with Americans, who generally refer more to Washington or Jefferson as "heroes") My personal take is that Franklin was definitely more of a pure politician than the others. He was more likely to say what he felt was politically correct than stand on the issues he supported. Not that Washington and Jefferson did not, but it was more from a compromise position. Given the current attitude, that lowers Franklins standing. It is definitly mush less now than in the 50's or 60's. "I will find a new sig someday."
-
From the NY Times[^] (need registration) "The new nation wanted a triumph-over-hardship, God-is-on-our-side image best embodied by Washington at Valley Forge, not by a diplomat who arranged a bailout by a foreign power. If you immortalize Franklin (...) then you say we couldn't have done it without France. And so when you pick your heroes to revere, you're also picking the myth that you want to tell." Any comment ?
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral. Antoine de Saint-Exupery (1900-1944)
I agree with Stan, that's a load of crap. Franklin was instrumental in getting the French to help out, but it was Washington that was the military mind behind the victory. It could very easily have been a defeat, especially without the help of the French. Washington was the man you won the battle of Trenton, survived Valley Forge, and out-smarted the brilliant Cornwallis at Yorktown. The NY Times is a P.O.S. newspaper with biases heavily toward the left of the political spectrum.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
I agree with Stan, that's a load of crap. Franklin was instrumental in getting the French to help out, but it was Washington that was the military mind behind the victory. It could very easily have been a defeat, especially without the help of the French. Washington was the man you won the battle of Trenton, survived Valley Forge, and out-smarted the brilliant Cornwallis at Yorktown. The NY Times is a P.O.S. newspaper with biases heavily toward the left of the political spectrum.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism *Jason Henderson wrote: but it was Washington that was the military mind behind the victory Don't you think that the political ideals and targets were at least as important than battles in the formation of your Nation, and that cedant arma togae[^]?
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral. Antoine de Saint-Exupery (1900-1944)
-
Jason Henderson wrote: but it was Washington that was the military mind behind the victory Don't you think that the political ideals and targets were at least as important than battles in the formation of your Nation, and that cedant arma togae[^]?
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral. Antoine de Saint-Exupery (1900-1944)
KaЯl wrote: Don't you think that the political ideals and targets were at least as important than battles in the formation of your Nation Absolutely. The military side of the revolution would not have been possible without the ideals, and the enactment of those ideals would not have been possible without the military victory. Contrary to what the Times would like to make you think, you can't have one without the other.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
From the NY Times[^] (need registration) "The new nation wanted a triumph-over-hardship, God-is-on-our-side image best embodied by Washington at Valley Forge, not by a diplomat who arranged a bailout by a foreign power. If you immortalize Franklin (...) then you say we couldn't have done it without France. And so when you pick your heroes to revere, you're also picking the myth that you want to tell." Any comment ?
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral. Antoine de Saint-Exupery (1900-1944)
I've always wished that a British film company would make a movie about the American war of independance, in which the British win at the end (and would all be seen from a British viewpoint) Over here (Britain, but I suspect other countries feel the same) we're somewhat tired of Hollywood's obsession with making movies that are vaugely based on real historical events, but just turn into 90-odd minutes of "Hooray for America!" this is an anti-hollywood movies rant, not an anti-america rant -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
-
Jason Henderson wrote: but it was Washington that was the military mind behind the victory Don't you think that the political ideals and targets were at least as important than battles in the formation of your Nation, and that cedant arma togae[^]?
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral. Antoine de Saint-Exupery (1900-1944)
KaЯl wrote: Don't you think that the political ideals and targets were at least as important than battles in the formation of your Nation, and that cedant arma togae True, but then again Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay had much more to do with our rule of law than Franklin or the French. In addition, Washington walking away after serving as POTUS was one of the single most significant events in political history. Until then, no able bodied national leader (anywhere in the world) had willingly and peacefully relinquished power. Mike Mullikin :beer:
Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation. - David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
-
I've always wished that a British film company would make a movie about the American war of independance, in which the British win at the end (and would all be seen from a British viewpoint) Over here (Britain, but I suspect other countries feel the same) we're somewhat tired of Hollywood's obsession with making movies that are vaugely based on real historical events, but just turn into 90-odd minutes of "Hooray for America!" this is an anti-hollywood movies rant, not an anti-america rant -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
There are plenty of more historical films (not made by hollywood) that tell the true story (without the spin). In fact, the history channel did a huge documentary on the war[^].
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
There are plenty of more historical films (not made by hollywood) that tell the true story (without the spin). In fact, the history channel did a huge documentary on the war[^].
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism *Yeah, it just bothers me that the average joe will be far more likely to watch the latest hollywood blockbuster, than sit and watch the documentary channels on TV (and so we'll end up with generations of people with an utterly unreal sense of history) -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
-
KaЯl wrote: Don't you think that the political ideals and targets were at least as important than battles in the formation of your Nation, and that cedant arma togae True, but then again Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay had much more to do with our rule of law than Franklin or the French. In addition, Washington walking away after serving as POTUS was one of the single most significant events in political history. Until then, no able bodied national leader (anywhere in the world) had willingly and peacefully relinquished power. Mike Mullikin :beer:
Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation. - David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Except Cincinnatus[^].
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
I've always wished that a British film company would make a movie about the American war of independance, in which the British win at the end (and would all be seen from a British viewpoint) Over here (Britain, but I suspect other countries feel the same) we're somewhat tired of Hollywood's obsession with making movies that are vaugely based on real historical events, but just turn into 90-odd minutes of "Hooray for America!" this is an anti-hollywood movies rant, not an anti-america rant -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
benjymous wrote: we're somewhat tired of Hollywood's obsession with making movies that are vaugely based on real historical events, but just turn into 90-odd minutes of "Hooray for America!" benjymous wrote: I've always wished that a British film company would make a movie about the American war of independance, in which the British win at the end So you want to replace one fiction with another?? ;P Mike Mullikin :beer:
Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation. - David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
-
benjymous wrote: we're somewhat tired of Hollywood's obsession with making movies that are vaugely based on real historical events, but just turn into 90-odd minutes of "Hooray for America!" benjymous wrote: I've always wished that a British film company would make a movie about the American war of independance, in which the British win at the end So you want to replace one fiction with another?? ;P Mike Mullikin :beer:
Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation. - David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Mike Mullikin wrote: So you want to replace one fiction with another?? That's exactly my point. Hopefully that would reinforce the idea to people that movies are about fictional events, and shouldn't be considered to be real. -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: So you want to replace one fiction with another?? That's exactly my point. Hopefully that would reinforce the idea to people that movies are about fictional events, and shouldn't be considered to be real. -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
benjymous wrote: Hopefully that would reinforce the idea to people that movies are about fictional events, and shouldn't be considered to be real. Yes, the sad part is we need to do the same thing with people's perceptions of the general media. Often time it's more fiction and bias than truth. Mike Mullikin :beer:
Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation. - David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
-
I agree with Stan, that's a load of crap. Franklin was instrumental in getting the French to help out, but it was Washington that was the military mind behind the victory. It could very easily have been a defeat, especially without the help of the French. Washington was the man you won the battle of Trenton, survived Valley Forge, and out-smarted the brilliant Cornwallis at Yorktown. The NY Times is a P.O.S. newspaper with biases heavily toward the left of the political spectrum.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism *Jason Henderson wrote: The NY Times is a P.O.S. newspaper with biases heavily toward the left of the political spectrum. yes, and we all know how purely evil a bias is. ;P
A conclusion is simply the place where someone got tired of thinking.
-
Yeah, it just bothers me that the average joe will be far more likely to watch the latest hollywood blockbuster, than sit and watch the documentary channels on TV (and so we'll end up with generations of people with an utterly unreal sense of history) -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
benjymous wrote: Yeah, it just bothers me that the average joe will be far more likely to watch the latest hollywood blockbuster, than sit and watch the documentary channels on TV (and so we'll end up with generations of people with an utterly unreal sense of history) Is history no longer taught in schools? I believe a person would pretty mindless to accept something on TV/Movie in preference to a history book. Hell, I love PBS and the history channel but I often find myself questioning even these sources. I can recall one PBS show where they were dead wrong. People need to be responsible for themselves. If they are simply too foolish to actually participate in their own education then they get what they deserve. Bunch of simpleton cry babies. If there wasn't a demand for the senseless crud that are most movies, the movie studios wouldn't produce them. Fill me with your knowledge, your wisdom, your coffee.
-
benjymous wrote: Yeah, it just bothers me that the average joe will be far more likely to watch the latest hollywood blockbuster, than sit and watch the documentary channels on TV (and so we'll end up with generations of people with an utterly unreal sense of history) Is history no longer taught in schools? I believe a person would pretty mindless to accept something on TV/Movie in preference to a history book. Hell, I love PBS and the history channel but I often find myself questioning even these sources. I can recall one PBS show where they were dead wrong. People need to be responsible for themselves. If they are simply too foolish to actually participate in their own education then they get what they deserve. Bunch of simpleton cry babies. If there wasn't a demand for the senseless crud that are most movies, the movie studios wouldn't produce them. Fill me with your knowledge, your wisdom, your coffee.
Well, at least here in the UK, History is taught as standard at highschool, but it's only an option for the last 2 years (so it doesn't have to be chosen). Primary school teachers are too busy making sure all the key skill national curriculum stuff is taught to be able to go into much historical stuff, so basically, unless they actively choose to study history, most kids will only get 3 years of history lessons max. My history teacher had the opinion that people don't really gain the ability of true independant thought until their mid teens, and so can't really comprehend history until they reach the point where many drop it. (When you consider that all history is, is just lots of mismatching opinions, which you need to sift yourself to truely understand, then this viewpoint makes quite a bit of sense) -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
-
Well, at least here in the UK, History is taught as standard at highschool, but it's only an option for the last 2 years (so it doesn't have to be chosen). Primary school teachers are too busy making sure all the key skill national curriculum stuff is taught to be able to go into much historical stuff, so basically, unless they actively choose to study history, most kids will only get 3 years of history lessons max. My history teacher had the opinion that people don't really gain the ability of true independant thought until their mid teens, and so can't really comprehend history until they reach the point where many drop it. (When you consider that all history is, is just lots of mismatching opinions, which you need to sift yourself to truely understand, then this viewpoint makes quite a bit of sense) -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
benjymous wrote: ...so can't really comprehend history until they reach the point where many drop it.... Now that is a sad irony. Fill me with your knowledge, your wisdom, your coffee.
-
Yeah, it just bothers me that the average joe will be far more likely to watch the latest hollywood blockbuster, than sit and watch the documentary channels on TV (and so we'll end up with generations of people with an utterly unreal sense of history) -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
it just bothers me that the average joe will be far more likely to watch the latest hollywood blockbuster I hear this kind of talk from alot of different people. Who is this average joe? Why do so many people think they are far and away more educated and knowledgable than 99% of their population? I would tend to believe most people understand movies are just entertainment. People certainly have moments of stupidity, but the majority of their day isn't spent wallowing in it. BW "I'm coming with you! I got you fired, it's the least I can do. Well, the least I could do is absolutely nothing, but I'll go you one better and come along!" - Homer J. Simpson
-
it just bothers me that the average joe will be far more likely to watch the latest hollywood blockbuster I hear this kind of talk from alot of different people. Who is this average joe? Why do so many people think they are far and away more educated and knowledgable than 99% of their population? I would tend to believe most people understand movies are just entertainment. People certainly have moments of stupidity, but the majority of their day isn't spent wallowing in it. BW "I'm coming with you! I got you fired, it's the least I can do. Well, the least I could do is absolutely nothing, but I'll go you one better and come along!" - Homer J. Simpson
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the average joe can't tell the difference between a movie and a factual documentary - I'm just saying when sitting down after a tiring day at work, most people I know (including myself) would much rather watch a movie than a couple of hours of documentaries. This is fine for the people who can understand the difference, but any children in the household may be too young and naive to be able to -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!