Change Your Image
mba24
Reviews
Washington (2020)
Relevant and worth watching
This was a decent effort by The History Channel, a network that has dependably sidetracked itself with forays into junk hoarding and alien conspiracies. Timing a Washington bio in conjunction with Presidents Day was sensible, and they promoted it non-stop to get the interest of viewers not generally interested in, well, history. And who better to center it on than the pre-eminent figure in US history? Very relevant choice, both on the calendar, and to shed light on a man who has taken a recent beating by the PC revisionist mob lately.
They did a great job in fleshing out how Washington's early years formed him into the man and leader he would gradually become, encounter by encounter. His bungling of the mission into the Ohio Country started the French and Indian War, an expensive struggle that eventually led to taxation and Revolution. Failure being the best teacher, he was cool under fire during the Braddock disaster. Every step of the way, Washington wrote voluminously; being his own PR department, in an effort to rise in military and societal prominence. The experiences he faced, and his descriptions of them, give us insight into what forged this raw and unprepared enthusiast, encounter by encounter, into the leader we are familiar with. The series serves this learning process, both for him and us, well.
But Washington is like many prominent people of his time, or any time for that matter. A complex character ardently dedicated to the independence of a nation's people against a tyrant, yet a slaveholder. A man who groomed his impeccable image with preparation and self-restraint, yet obtained vast land-holdings, some by questionable dealings. And was his self-promoting (while appearing humble) pursuit of command of the army from Congress motivated by pure patriotism or somewhat his contempt for the British army? just how did this man manage to hang onto command when he got it, after defeat upon defeat? And, what was his motivation to return from private life to lead a very troubled new nation? This series does a decent job addressing many these questions, while permitting the viewer to think along, all in just six hours. It is brilliant in that regard.
Now, the nit-picky stuff that we hyper-historians love to point out. The usual production goofs: The defeat at Fort Necessity during the driving rain, except the sun is out; the young commander drilling his raw Virginia recruits on musket and bayonet when he himself hadn't been trained (and one militia man actually fires his musket without the lock secured); the opinions of some of the guest historians that Washington's escape from New York was due to his brilliance, when in fact luck, weather, and Howe's hesitancy were more important in getting him out of a mess of his own design; attacking active Trenton sentry posts in the dark of night, when in fact it was already morning and the Hessions were hung over; the curious omission of how Washington drove the British out of Boston with that undisciplined rabble he first encounters at Cambridge; how pivotal Benedict Arnold was in the first three years of the war to the patriot cause; and... having Henry Knox played by a tall, slender actor. (C'mon, Knox was a blimp!)
I appreciated the balance in considering Washington's apparent character contradictions and tactical errors; especially he being the quintessential advocate of freedom while holding slaves. I thought these considerations were even-handed, especially the one's made by the African-American historians. Washington is looked at, as they say; "warts and all", a man of his times and situations. Is he called to task for many transgressions and failures? I think, yes, and fairly. Is there an attempt to wipe him from the prominence of our history which seems in vogue these days? No, and again, fairly.
Just who was he then? A sports commentator might say, "Hereza guy...who at least a half dozen times, strapped America on his back, and single-handedly kept us in the game, carrying us across the goal line!" And THAT would be pretty much spot on. No Washington...NO United States.
The Men Who Built America: Frontiersmen (2018)
Facts are stubborn things
Finished watching the series. Nice try, some great footage, but curiously lacking in historical facts, with some simply odd charcter portrayals. I have never seen portraits of Boone or Andrew Jackson with beards, and seldom Crockett either. Yes, in the wilderness I'm sure they had them, but there are plenty of illustrations of them all, and they look like the series portrayal. (Wanna great portrayal of David Crockett? Billy Bob Thornton owns it.)
And now for the historical inaccuracies: 1) At the Battle of Fallen Timbers, it was suggested the British were quickly routed, enabling the quick defeat of the Indian Confederacy by American forces under (portrayed as) the ruthless William Henry Harrison. Truth? The British never even took the field that day, and in fact didn't even allow retreating Native Americans sanctuary into British Fort Miami. And, the American forces were led by Anthony Wayne, not Harrison. 2) It was suggested Lewis and Clark headed overland from Fort Mandan in North Dakota, unable to proceed further by water. Wrong. They proceeded up the Missouri even beyond Great Falls MT, where they executed an arduous portage. To omit their adventures on the upper Missouri, which they thought might be the Northwest Passage that led all the way to the Pacific, ignores a significant part of the trek. 3) Andrew Jackson portrayed as ruthlessly commanding the slaughter of the Red Sticks at Tallushatchee. While Crockett was there, Jackson was not; the force was commanded by Gen. John Coffee. Brutal encounter to be sure, but the frontier was a brutal place at times, with no quarter shown. You may recall, Tallushatchee was in retaliation for Ft. Mims getting wiped out. 4) Jackson and Crockett bitter rivals stemming from a run-in at Tallushatchee? Nonsense. Crockett was a firm supporter of Jackson's presidential run, and Jackson for Crockett's run for Congress. Their fallout stemmed from the Indian Relocation Act. The Trail of Tears is a blight on Jackson's presidential record, but he certainly did not hat all Indians. In fact, he adopted an orphan from the Red Stick war into his own home. 5) It is almost suggested that Crockett, who by the way preferred the name David, was in charge of the Alamo. Command of that garrison and its volunteer/militia force was split between Jim Bowie and William Travis. And Santa Ana didn't just show up ahead of schedule and overrun the Alamo in 90 minutes; it took the Mexican force 13 days to finally accomplish their victory, and the final assault commenced at night, not under daylight. The time the plucky Alamo defenders bought by bogging down Santa Ana was invaluable for Sam Houston to begin to raise an adequate army to eventually defeat the Mexican dictator and liberate Texas. 6) Kit Carson? Mind telling me how he could fight a battle against the Mexicans firing both a percussion cap AND flintlock rifle when he was carrying just the one rifle? And...John C Fremont raising the original 13 Stars and Stripes over Los Angeles in 1846, when there were already 28 states? Oh, by the way...Fremont was the one with the beard, Carson was clean shaven.
This effort, though admirable in its intentions, reminds me of a line from SNL: "Learn a book, Seth!" Come on...You guys had a worthy idea in trying to bring some historical insight to a public sorely needing knowledge of their heritage. We NEED stuff like this! Don't be lazy, motivated by your own opinions, or sloppy. Finish the deal...You're the History Channel! Try mixing in more...History.