Fahrenheit 1776

G

Guest

Guest
I'll be watching. - Perdita

British Eyes Look at 1776 and See Less to Approve - ALESSANDRA STANLEY, NYT, 6.23.2004

Since Sept. 11, television has done a decent job of explaining why they hate us. Tonight PBS reveals why they have always hated us. "Rebels and Redcoats: How Britain lost America" is a wickedly revisionist view of the American Revolution, a "Fahrenheit 1776."

When American soldiers are fighting Iraqi insurgents under a besieged banner of freedom and democracy, some viewers may not relish a re-examination of the Stamp Act and Yorktown from the point of view of the British Crown. And certainly the narrator, the British military historian Richard Holmes, gets a bit carried away in the heat of battle re-enactment. "Unsportingly," he says, "the Americans were picking off British officers who were easily identifiable by their scarlet rather than their faded red uniforms."

But the two-part documentary, being shown tonight and next Wednesday, is an engaging upside-down look at a period of American history that few Americans ever question. It may not be exactly fair — the British bias is blatant — but it is fairly accurate. Mostly, it gives viewers a sense of the world's more jaundiced view of a revolution that Americans cherish as a triumph of democracy and human rights. And a little like Michael Moore's polemical films, the documentary delivers its most striking indictments not in the facts but in the sly visual juxtapositions.

Mr. Holmes begins by taking viewers on a tour of Boston, a city that in the 1770's was a boom town and, in his words, a "tax-free haven." (He points out that colonists there paid 50 percent of the taxes paid by their English compatriots back home.)

Dressed for American success in a Ralph Lauren dress shirt and driving a red Mustang convertible, he avoids the quaint cobbled side streets of Cambridge and Beacon Hill, preferring a flashy backdrop of shops, fast food outlets and even a dip inside the Boston Stock Exchange. Against that display of modern consumerism, Mr. Holmes describes 18th-century Boston as a city "full of people on the make," some, he says, who "felt their freedom to make money and get rich was being restricted."

British troops are portrayed with sympathy. After the battle of Concord, British soldiers stumble on the body of a dying comrade, scalped, his ears and other parts cut off in what Mr. Holmes describes as "the first atrocity of the war."

John Hancock is described as a rich merchant and smuggler, which is a bit of British overstatement. Margaret Kemble, the American-born wife of Thomas Gage, the British commander of North America, is believed by many historians to have been a rebel spy. Here she is a saucy temptress whose act of "personal betrayal" looks as much like adultery as espionage.

Mr. Holmes tries to explain the rebels' point of view, but a British sensibility dominates. "Rebels and Redcoats" relies on costumed re-enactments of battles and key historic moments and also on the vivid narration of the bald and bespectacled Mr. Holmes, who gamely tramps through swamps, forests and fields, and travels in an amphibious vessel, a bus, a jeep and even, by the time he reaches the pivotal battle of Cowpens in South Carolina, astride a white horse. (As British losses pile up, Mr. Holmes reveals his true allegiance, trading Ralph Lauren shirts for a Barbour jacket.)

The program does not raise new issues but follows the more politically correct interpretation of history found in books like Joy Hakim's multivolume textbook, "A History of Us," that so irritate many conservatives and others.

Mr. Holmes underlines the revolution's moral failure to end slavery and explains that the Proclamation Line of 1763, which was intended to prevent colonists from seizing territory beyond the Appalachians, was created by the British partly to protect Indian populations from land-hungry frontiersmen.

Mr. Holmes spends quite a bit of time on David George, a slave who joined the British side to gain his freedom, and even attends a Sunday service in the Silver Bluffs, Ga., church that George founded. He is openly contemptuous of slave-owning freedom fighters, saying of George Washington that "the father of American liberty was only for freedom if it did not apply to his black brethren or slaves."

But he also draws historical parallels between "the 18th-century Superpower" and the United States today, describing Bunker Hill as the Hamburger Hill of Britain, a Pyrrhic victory that mostly revealed the fierce tenacity of the enemy. Mr. Holmes says the New England farmer had qualities "very similar" to those of the Vietcong and Islamic guerrillas. There is no direct reference to Iraq, but the film stresses how difficult it is for any occupying force to outlast guerrilla warfare and acts of terror.

Mr. Holmes, who clearly relishes battle re-enactments, has a chipper demeanor, but he ends his assessment on a surprisingly sour note. Liberty, he says, remains a noble ideal, "but the American Revolution, like revolutions before and since, shows just what an elusive quality it really is."
--------------------
REBELS AND REDCOATS - How Britain Lost America
PBS, tonight at 9, Eastern and Pacific times; 8, Central time
Executive producer, Zvi Dor-Ner. Produced by WGBH Boston and Granada Television in association with BBC Wales.
 
perdita - looks like an interesting show; I think I will check it out.
DJJ
:rose:
 
JJ: Where are you? The listing is for viewing here in the states. Good to see you (though I prefer the real you). P. :heart:
 
You usually do have to wait a couple of hundred years to get a balanced view of history.

Or sometimes just a different opinion.

I may just watch some TV tonight.
 
perdita said:
Mr. Holmes begins by taking viewers on a tour of Boston, a city that in the 1770's was a boom town and, in his words, a "tax-free haven." (He points out that colonists there paid 50 percent of the taxes paid by their English compatriots back home.)


I really wish someone would get a new tax argument. Seems that no matter where you are in the world, when the subject of a tax being perceived as being too high comes up, someone is always quick to point out others that have to pay a higher rate.
 
perdita said:
JJ: Where are you? The listing is for viewing here in the states. Good to see you (though I prefer the real you). P. :heart:
P - I am in the states too. And as far as the real me... that IS me in the picture after all. ;)
JJ
:rose:
 
JJ: I apologize, I must have read something wrong once. I thought you were in England and blond!?

Perdita :rolleyes:
 
it would be nice to know what motives and intentions the Brit imputes to the Americans, i.e., what he thinks underlies the talk of ideals, unfair taxes, etc.

i suspect, if it's a defense of a colonial power, the theme is how much we are(were) doing for the ungrateful bastards. Nice daddy, misunderstood and slandered.
 
perdita said:
JJ: I apologize, I must have read something wrong once. I thought you were in England and blond!?

Perdita :rolleyes:
No problem, Perdita... you probably were thinking of MysteryJJ - she is blond and from England. Others have gotten us confused too. I am in the states (and brunette).
JJ
:)

Did you watch?
 
perdita,

Oddly enough, I heard a radio discussion on this very subject this morning (one of the perks of being off sick!).

It made the following points (Ihave no idea if they're correct or not) -

1 Most Americans in the US at the time thought of themselves as British first, and American second (like Texans think of themselves as Texans first and foremost, I imagine). So the independence movement was more of a movement within Britain than anti-British.

2 The tax situation was a side issue - it wasn't a punitive tax at the time, and the revolution took a long time after the tax changes to gather momentum. The opposition to the British was more due to the way the taxes were introduced, than the imposition itself, and the fact that the tax was only introduced to finance a war the Americans had little interest in.

3 The foreword to the constitution written by Jefferson merely reflected the philpsophical trends of the day, and wasn't viewed as either enlightened or particularly important.

4 Washington was not a skilled general, fighting three battles and winning the most important one with significant help from the French

As I say, this may be completely wide of the mark, or I may have misheard some of it, so I'd be interested in everyone's views about whether it reflects current analysis of events

thanks
 
Wow, I'm sorry I didn't see this before now, so I could have looked for the program last night. I'll have to try to catch the next part.


Steve:
The foreword to the constitution written by Jefferson merely reflected the philpsophical trends of the day, and wasn't viewed as either enlightened or particularly important.
I'm confused here. Do you mean the Declaration of Independence? (Which was written by Jefferson and which is really a great piece of propaganda and rabble-rousing.) Or do you mean the actual Preamble to the Constitution? (Which was written by James Madison and just kind of introduces what the whole document is about. And I bet most Americans who were kids at the same time I was can sing the whole thing, thanks to Schoolhouse Rock!)

~M:rose:
 
DirtyJJ said:
... you probably were thinking of MysteryJJ - she is blond and from England. ... Did you watch?
Ah, that's it. Plus MysteryJJ can be very 'dirty' ;) . I could not watch, family emergency came up early last evening (all's fine now).

Anyone else watch? Please tell us.

Steve W., as always I appreciate your thoughts.

Perdita
 
I only caught a little bit of it (when I bothered to watch the tv... hehe). It was pretty cool but can't say I caught much anything new or interestiung from the clip. Guess I don't get much from tv.
 
History is constantly rewritten

There was considerable support in the UK Houses of Parliament for the American Colonies including the slogan 'No taxation without representation'.

The policy of taxing the colonies for expenditure beyond their borders was not wholly supported. Many wanted the 13 colonies to have their own tax raising and spending powers decided by their own elected representatives, not by London, or if they had to be taxed for things beyond their borders, such as the Navy, that they should elect members to the London parliament.

An unpopular administration acted harshly to suppress a threat that didn't really exist. That generated opposition that made the threat real. (Where have I heard that recently?)

The colonies had won most of the concessions they asked for but fundamentalists on both sides pushed for war because they would lose influence if a peaceful compromise was agreed.

It was an unnecessary war that split families and friends and like most Civil Wars was cruel to many who had divided loyalties. The issues were not clear cut on either side - until the shooting started.

Og
 
steve w said:


4 Washington was not a skilled general, fighting three battles and winning the most important one with significant help from the French



thanks


Washington was a highly skilled general. In the mold of Eisenhower more than Patton, but the rebels needed an Eisenhower. Washington, much like Uncle Ho, realized the important thing was to keep an army in the field. He did so magnificently, convincing men to fight on through shortages and hard ships of every imaginable type. He also delegated to a group of skilled & resourceful men. Knox, Arnold, Layfaette, etc. were excellent tactical generals, which perhaps Washington wasn't.

It is important to remember here that even a Patton or Rommel wouldn't have served the American's need, they were not going to win by force of arms. Washington fought a running battle with the continental congress over funds & supplies. He was diplomatic, charismatic and when it really counted Trenton, Yorktown, he won in the field as well.

-Colly
 
Back
Top