The American Revolution Is About To Experience The ‘Ken Burns Effect’

[mystery-ak]

The American Revolution Is About To Experience The ‘Ken Burns Effect’
Christopher Jacobs

Given our current political climate and the amplifying — not to mention polarizing — effects of social media, Americans today hear much about what divides us. Perhaps a new documentary miniseries might broaden our horizons and allow families to focus instead on what unites us.

The American Revolution, a six-part miniseries by Ken Burns that airs beginning this Sunday, should remind us that our country’s creation, let alone its survival, was by no means certain. The Revolutionary War was in many ways a civil war, with only part of the American colonists desiring a split from Great Britain, another portion remaining loyal to King George III, and a third group ambivalent, but not necessarily indifferent, waiting to see how it would all play out.

As our nation approaches its 250th birthday next summer, Burns’ miniseries should give Americans of all political persuasions newfound appreciation for the sacrifices our ancestors made a quarter-millennia ago, helping to spark what Lincoln at Gettysburg dubbed “a new birth of freedom” in our hearts and minds.

more
https://thefederalist.com/2025/11/14/the-american-revolution-is-about-to-experience-the-ken-burns-effect/

[mystery-ak]

I plan on watching this..I already have my DVR set to record...

[Timber Rattler]

Problem is that Burn is a flaming liberal and his ideology flavors all of his work.  His brother Ric is actually a much better filmmaker.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ric_Burns

[Wingnut]

I'm sure Ken will be sure to tell us how racist our founding Fathers were.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I think it'll be good. Drop the constant ideological purity test, it's tiresome.

[Cyber Liberty]

I think it'll be good. Drop the constant ideological purity test, it's tiresome.

I don't care about "ideological purity," I only want fair treatment of the subject matter!  Burns is capable of doing this correctly, so let's see the final product.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I don't care about "ideological purity," I only want fair treatment of the subject matter!  Burns is capable of doing this correctly, so let's see the final product.

And if you'll recall they had shelby foote on the Civil War Documentary, notably a modern confederacy supporter, and didn't treat him disrespectably at all, quite the opposite.

[mountaineer]

I just wonder whether Burns would handle any topic in 2025 as even-handedly as he did the Civil War. That series was made in 1990, back when it was okay not to make everything political.

[berdie]

I may watch because I love history. But I read a "pre"- review that wasn't very flattering. Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[Timber Rattler]

Ken Burns Says His New Documentary Forced Him to Revisit Everything He Thought He Knew About the American Revolution

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ken-burns-says-his-new-documentary-forced-him-to-revisit-everything-he-thought-he-knew-about-the-american-revolution-180987667/?is_pocket=1

The American Revolution is shrouded in myth. But the war that created the United States was much more than the oft-told tales of the founding fathers. It was a bloody, gritty affair, a tragic civil war and a global conflict as much as it was a war for independence.

To portray this complexity and piece together how the history Americans think they know actually unfolded, acclaimed filmmaker Ken Burns and co-directors Sarah Botstein and David Schmidt spent more than nine years interviewing scholars and researching first-person accounts of the Revolution. The result is “The American Revolution,” a six-part, 12-hour documentary series that premieres on PBS on November 16.

Debuting ahead of America’s 250th anniversary in July 2026 (and just before Thanksgiving, a much-mythologized American holiday), the highly anticipated series covers the beginning of the French and Indian War in May 1754 through the end of the Revolution in 1783, in addition to touching on the creation of the Constitution in 1787 and George Washington’s election as the nation’s first president in 1789. Burns and his colleagues recount battles and key events through the eyes of everyday people, as well as historical leaders like Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Narrated by prominent actors, including Tom Hanks, Meryl Streep and Samuel L. Jackson, the documentary conveys the grim reality of war—for instance, the lice and frostbite experienced by soldiers—and examines how the American resistance morphed from angry mobs in Boston looking to resolve specific issues with England into an organized militia fighting for self-rule.

(snip)

Smithsonian spoke with Burns and Botstein to learn what their research revealed about the American Revolution, as well as the stories that viewers of the documentary might find surprising. Read on for a condensed and edited version of the conversation.

EXCERPT

[BobfromWB]

Ken Burns Says His New Documentary Forced Him to Revisit Everything He Thought He Knew About the American Revolution

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ken-burns-says-his-new-documentary-forced-him-to-revisit-everything-he-thought-he-knew-about-the-american-revolution-180987667/?is_pocket=1

EXCERPT

Narrated by prominent mega-leftist actors, including Tom Hanks, Meryl Streep and Samuel L. Jackson

[Kamaji]

Ken Burns Says His New Documentary Forced Him to Revisit Everything He Thought He Knew About the American Revolution

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ken-burns-says-his-new-documentary-forced-him-to-revisit-everything-he-thought-he-knew-about-the-american-revolution-180987667/?is_pocket=1

EXCERPT

Thanks for posting the article.  It was surprisingly free from the characteristic leftist ideology that typically infests much of what comes from the Smithsonian these days, and Burns' statements were also free of ideological statements, which suggests that the project may be worth watching.

[Bigun]

Thanks for posting the article.  It was surprisingly free from the characteristic leftist ideology that typically infests much of what comes from the Smithsonian these days, and Burns' statements were also free of ideological statements, which suggests that the project may be worth watching.

I'll watch with pencil and notebook nearby.

[Kamaji]

I'll watch with pencil and notebook nearby.

Fair enough.  If I watch it, I'll keep my skeptic's hat close by, and the remote ready to change the station if he starts to go down the ideological rabbit hole.

[Fishrrman]

I won't be watching...

[mountaineer]

It's on PBS, so I won't be able to watch it. The closest PBS station seems to be operating on hamster power, and we cannot receive its signal.

[mystery-ak]

Documentarian and New Hampshire resident Ken Burns newest documentary is a six-part, 12 hour show on the American Revolution.

It will air for six consecutive nights beginning Sunday, Nov. 16, and will explore "the country’s founding and its eight-year war for independence," according to PBS broadcasting.

“There’s no photographs. There’s no news reels. The cast of characters is so spectacularly diverse," he said. "The possibility of our success on April 19, 1775, of doing this was zero and we did it."

"The how we did it is so interesting," Burns continued in an interview with Wicked Local. “Luck, a lot of great leadership, a lot of bad leadership, a lot of bad weather. A lot of big distances. A lot of great ideas. It still can be an inspirational beacon."

Air Time: 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET each night.

Start Date: Sunday, November 16, 2025.

End Date: Friday, November 21, 2025.

Streaming: Episodes are available to stream for free on PBS.org and the PBS App starting November 16.

[rustynail]

Will it be Diverse and Equitable and Inclusive?

[bigheadfred]

Adam Johnston
@adamkjohnston
·
Nov 18
Less than 3 minutes into the Ken Burns documentary on the American Revolution, and we get:

1. White people are bad.

2. Native Americans had a centuries-old democracy before British colonists arrived.

3. Benjamin Franklin copied the Native American blueprint.

[Bigun]

Adam Johnston
@adamkjohnston
·
Nov 18
Less than 3 minutes into the Ken Burns documentary on the American Revolution, and we get:

1. White people are bad.

2. Native Americans had a centuries-old democracy before British colonists arrived.

3. Benjamin Franklin copied the Native American blueprint.

I turned it off shortly thereafter and have no plans to revisit.

[DefiantMassRINO]

... (and just before Thanksgiving, a much-mythologized American holiday) ...

That editorial quip tells me all I need to know.

[Cyber Liberty]

So the documentary is out, and the verdict is in on Burns.  Too bad for him....

[mountaineer]

More reaction, posted on X:

Dr. Alexander S. Burns
Dr. Alexander S. Burns
@KKriegeBlog
“Whole war predicated on taking of Indian land in the west”
8:32 PM · Nov 19, 2025

@KKriegeBlog
I’m just gonna say, this is not a retelling of the American story which prioritizes ideas, but much like class-based historiography of the revolution over the last fifty years, focuses almost exclusively on the material motivations of the participants.
8:37 PM · Nov 19, 2025

Jamie Hale
@RichmondWahoo
This has been my impression as well, and why ultimately I can’t recommend this series.
Burns’ version of events mostly ignores Enlightenment ideals, the pursuit of liberty, demand for equal rights as British subjects, etc and instead attributes the war to material greed and want
9:30 PM · Nov 19, 2025

Dr. Alexander S. Burns
@KKriegeBlog
Discussion of religion in colonial America, documentary argues that most founding fathers were deists.
8:49 PM · Nov 19, 2025

Thread on how the documentary is wrong about muskets:

https://twitter.com/KKriegeBlog/status/1990938724838904196

[catfish1957]

You probably already know my opinion of Burns.....

His CW documentary was so politically slanted, that it was obscene.

Stick with baseball numbnuts..........

[Wingnut]

So the documentary is out, and the verdict is in on Burns.  Too bad for him....

The American Revolution never stood a chance under his direction.

[catfish1957]

And if you'll recall they had shelby foote on the Civil War Documentary, notably a modern confederacy supporter, and didn't treat him disrespectably at all, quite the opposite.

Maybe I didn't see the same documentary.....

I thought Burns treated him like a token lost-causer. 

[catfish1957]

The American Revolution Is About To Experience The ‘Ken Burns Revisionist Effect’

Felt compelled to adjust the title for accuracy. 

[Timber Rattler]

Yeah, the feedback is coming in fast and furious from the reenactor, living history, and academic communities...Burns really screwed this one up based on his own biases and prejudices (just like I suspected he would up thread).  He obviously doesn't know much about 18th century America and seems embarrassed by the whole War for Independence.

The History Channel's 2006 series is much better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revolution_(miniseries)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCDwCUK0Zbg

[mountaineer]

Speaking of Shelby Foote -  Mr. M, his dad, and I had the distinct pleasure of attending one of his talks at a small college near us in the late 90s. He was very gracious to my f-i-l.

[catfish1957]

Yeah, the feedback is coming in fast and furious from the reenactor, living history, and academic communities...Burns really screwed this one up based on his own biases and prejudices (just like I suspected he would up thread).  He obviously doesn't know much about 18th century America and seems embarrassed by the whole War for Independence.

The History Channel's 2006 series is much better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revolution_(miniseries)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCDwCUK0Zbg

Over/under on the documentary focusing on Founding Fathers owning slaves?   I am going with 45 minutes. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

So the documentary is out, and the verdict is in on Burns.  Too bad for him....

If this is true then that's disappointing.

[Cyber Liberty]

If this is true then that's disappointing.

Yup!  I thought he was capable of better, but I guess not.

[mountaineer]

Yup!  I thought he was capable of better, but I guess not.

Oh, he's capable - just unwilling. He'd be castigated by the left if he didn't criticize the old, white, slave-holding founding fathers, dontcha know.

[catfish1957]

Oh, he's capable - just unwilling. He'd be castigated by the left if he didn't criticize the old, white, slave-holding founding fathers, dontcha know.

PBS pays the bills.  He's a whore his masters, and has no creative integrity.

[Cyber Liberty]

PBS pays the bills.  He's a whore his masters, and has no creative integrity.

He made his choice.

[MeganC]

Yeah, the feedback is coming in fast and furious from the reenactor, living history, and academic communities...Burns really screwed this one up based on his own biases and prejudices (just like I suspected he would up thread).  He obviously doesn't know much about 18th century America and seems embarrassed by the whole War for Independence.

The History Channel's 2006 series is much better.

In one of the previews Burns communicates his discomfort in working with the reenactors and this did not surprise me. One of the narratives of the anti-American revisionists is that reenacting White history is racist.

 

[rangerrebew]

November 30, 2025
Ken Burns Rejects Factual Revolutionary History In Favor Of The 1619 Project
By S. David Sultzer

Ken Burns is giving a history of the American Revolution replete with leftist narratives unmoored from facts. In Episode 1, Burns erroneously claims that the driving force of the American Revolution was to steal Indian land. In Episode 2, the narrative is slavery and the evil colonists, including George Washington. After defaming George Washington, Burns adopts the canard that slavery was a cause of the American Revolution, and portrays slavery as an unchallenged colonial evil, ignoring the colonies’ abolitionist movement, a world first.
 
An 1850 image of Anthony Benezet, a colonial-era Quaker and abolitionist, instructing black children. Public domain in the United States.


Through 1775, George Washington owned slaves and thought little of blacks, although he later came to embrace blacks in the Continental Army. During the revolution, Billy Lee, his slave, was his closest companion. After the war, Washington wished to see slavery abolished. This is all undisputed fact, often in Washington’s own words.

Instead, Burns repeats an almost certainly fictitious story about a slave, Darby Vasal, who would have been six years old in 1775 during his alleged interaction with Washington. Supposedly, Washington told Vassall to come inside his headquarters to do some chores and, when Vassall asked to be paid, Washington took umbrage. Vassall then claimed later, “Washington was no gentleman”—that is, Burns’s money quote.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/11/ken_burns_rejects_factual_revolutionary_history_in_favor_of_the_1619_project.html

[rangerrebew]

Too much nose candy?  I HAD a great deal of respect for his work.

[Mod2]

Topics consolidated and moved to Entertainment category

[mystery-ak]

November 30, 2025
Ken Burns Rejects Factual Revolutionary History In Favor Of The 1619 Project
By S. David Sultzer

Ken Burns is giving a history of the American Revolution replete with leftist narratives unmoored from facts. In Episode 1, Burns erroneously claims that the driving force of the American Revolution was to steal Indian land. In Episode 2, the narrative is slavery and the evil colonists, including George Washington. After defaming George Washington, Burns adopts the canard that slavery was a cause of the American Revolution, and portrays slavery as an unchallenged colonial evil, ignoring the colonies’ abolitionist movement, a world first.

Through 1775, George Washington owned slaves and thought little of blacks, although he later came to embrace blacks in the Continental Army. During the revolution, Billy Lee, his slave, was his closest companion. After the war, Washington wished to see slavery abolished. This is all undisputed fact, often in Washington’s own words.

Instead, Burns repeats an almost certainly fictitious story about a slave, Darby Vasal, who would have been six years old in 1775 during his alleged interaction with Washington. Supposedly, Washington told Vassall to come inside his headquarters to do some chores and, when Vassall asked to be paid, Washington took umbrage. Vassall then claimed later, “Washington was no gentleman”—that is, Burns’s money quote.

more
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/11/ken_burns_rejects_factual_revolutionary_history_in_favor_of_the_1619_project.html