Two difficult things covered (so far) in Ken Burns' "American Revolution"
I get tired of Ken Burns' mannerisms and tropes and then he dazzles me again with a new docuseries. In this case, "American Revolution". I haven't finished it yet but am looking forward to it.
To be fair to my history minor and subsequent history reading, nothing so far as been entirely "new". But it has been easy to 'read past' some things, without seriously contemplating them and fitting them into the larger historical context, and considering their lasting implications. So far, Burns has done an excellent job of covering two of those things:
First, the extent to which the desire of the more powerful and wealthy colonist entrepreneurs to grab and exploit lands belonging to Indigenous nations figured into the train of events severing them psychologically from England and its rule. The way it played out made me think of some of the things today's oligarchs use to rouse the rabble and consolidate their power. As new land-hungry colonists arrived, it was easy for the propagandists of the time to stir up discontent with England's policy of "hands off" lands on the other side of the Appalachians.
England wasn't doing this 'to be nice to the natives'. They sought control over a fast-growing and diversifying colonial population, and to do that with limited military and civil authority resources, they needed to control the size of the colonist-occupied territories. The politics between the many remaining intact Indigenous nations, England, the other European powers, and the various colonies, were far more complex than I knew.
And that led to the more powerful and influential among the colonial leaders and propagandists making the most of England's other attempts to control and/or generate sufficient revenue from the colonies to support the costs of their colonial in-place military and bureaucratic infrastructure. Which, when examined objectively, were not unreasonable goals, but Lordy did the Brits ham-handedly find their way to every worst-choice scenario they could in trying to implement such things. This contributed to the long, dark root of America's "You're not the boss of me!" strain of libertarian psychosis.
The second thing, and it's odd how diametrically and conceptually opposite it is to that first thing, was the nature and ubiquity of the "Committees of Correspondence/Inspection/Safety" as things edged closer to the flashpoint. They were essentially vigilante groups enforcing approved anti-British, pro-Revolutionary rules.
The Commitees' self-appointed jurisdiction applied to almost all aspects of people's lives - whether or not they supported aid to Boston, whether they spoke kindly of English authority or insultingly of Colonial leaders and their actions, what pamphlets they read (or just had in their homes) what they ate or drank (NO boycotted English products or even local products that might resemble "British" wares), who they did business with. And whether, when publicly hauled before a forum of their neighbors, they spoke correctly about their views and agreed vigorously enough with the approved doctrines or apologized abjectly enough for some infraction.
Which sounds very Cultural Revolution, to me. Very authoritarian, even. God help the uncommitted individual going about their business and making a spot of mild tut-tuttery about the mobs forming around the taverns to revel in, shout agreement with, and get increasingly rowdy in response to fiery speeches. What must it have been like for them? While they may have been in a minority, the choice given them between fear-based compliance, and going over to the Loyalists entirely must have been a painful one.
They weren't really nice people, most of those Founding Fathers. They kept slaves, they believed in liberty for white male property owners, and what they REALLY wanted was freedom from any restraint on land-grabbing, commercial exploitation, and building their own wealth no matter the potential damage to anyone else.
And yet, they managed to define a framework for self-governance and a set of ideals for its purpose that changed everything. They set the course for a long, difficult effort to bring about a system that increasingly allowed more and more previously disenfranchised people into the big tent of self governance, checks and balances, equality under the law, and power sharing.
I sometimes wonder whether, if we could wake all those Founders up today, how many of them would find themselves cozy quarters at the Heritage Foundation and in the new White House Ballroom with the other oligarchs, and how many of them would be hollering their lungs out at the next No Kings march.
musingly,
Bright
= new reply since forum marked as read
I have also appreciated how First Nations issues are covered, how they started losing their homes as soon as greedy colonists showed up. The issue of slavery has not been sugar-coated either. Most of these men were wealthy landowners with mega-farms, and hundreds of slaves. The touting of freedom is ironic.
BUT, it is a good story.
