John Adams series on HBO

[Stalwart]

Trolling? I asked a legit question about a American politician and I got a sarcastic answer.
By the way I  proud of my country and if you don't like fair enough, I won't be insulting your country as you have with mine.

Re-read my posts.  There's nothing insulting in them.  In fact, I've stayed on topic in this thread.

Great new trolling cast though.   

[Anaxogoras]

We didn't enslave them, we merely shot them....

I've never thought about it that way before.  One the one hand I find it cynical, and the other I think, "yes, very true."

[Stalwart]

I'm enjoying the conversation about the John Adams series and the personalities the series depicts.  

I wish you (you know who you are) would take the valid discussions of slavery, expansionism, and treatment of Native Americans to another board where political discussion won't get the thread locked.  

[gyrene81]

Just don't say the word "politics" or make any flaming posts and it won't get locked.

Who is this 'we' you are referring to? 

I think we can blame it all on the attitudes of the early Spanish explorers and after that it was on again off again expansionism. Quite often times it was kill or be killed and to point fingers from the comfort of your computer desk and say it was 'that countries fault' or the result of genocide toward an entire way of life is a great over-simplification and completely dishonest.

"We" refers to those of Western European descent who settled in the U.S and decided it was "manifest destiny" that they own everything they saw. The early Spanish explorers had more to do with South American natives than North American natives. And yes, the demise of Native Americans in the U.S. was due partly as a direct result of the same Christian mentality that was responsible for more than 500 years of European death and destruction "in the name of God"...in other words, convert or perish. The South American natives perished from pure greed, compliments of the Spanish Conquistadors.

[TracerX]

I watched more clips of the Series last night courtesy of Youtube, and I loved the portrayal of Benjamin Franklin.  I am not as schooled on the relationship between Adams and Franklin, except for the knowledge that they were diplomats to France at the same time, and they differed greatly in their approach to their duties.  The series clearly showed how Adams chaffed at the slow, ceremonial pageantry he was continually subjected to, and Franklin flourished in the role.  I liked the way Franklin advised and tutored Adams in many cases.

Washington was also very well portrayed.  He was a commanding figure, always distinguished and proper, often the center of attention, but never the life of the party because of his sense of decorum and proper etiquette.  His gentlemanly ways were not natural to him, his grace and charm were only acquired through much study and intense discipline on his part.  He was also prone to intense displays of anger when his discipline failed to control his emotions.  I thought Washington was as closely matched as Adams and Franklin was to the role played.

I got the impression that Jefferson and Hamilton were not as accurately portrayed, only because it lends itself to describing Adams better.  The two antagonists need to be fairly harshly contrasted so that Adams role can be more easily shown between them.  Still Hamilton and Jefferson were not horribly miss represented, and the ideas they present are all factual if not accurately dramatized.

[Chalenge]

I'm enjoying the conversation about the John Adams series and the personalities the series depicts.  

I wish you (you know who you are) would take the valid discussions of slavery, expansionism, and treatment of Native Americans to another board where political discussion won't get the thread locked.  

None of that is political so get over yourself.

[Anaxogoras]

So is this a precedent?  The topics of imperialism, slavery, and extermination of a people are not in violation in rule #14?

edit: good spelling catch.

[Chalenge]

Its a matter of how they are discussed I believe as they are not subjects of politics alone. So far we have mentioned when they were abolished as a trade and by whom and I corrected the inconsistencies. Expansionism was mentioned only as a partial cause for the treatment of native peoples. Your lumping them together (and its 'imperialism' by the way)' is probably the closest thing to a rule violation yet but thats for Skuzzy to decide.

I find the period that Adams and Jefferson and Washington and Franklin and Hamilton lived in to be very fascinating as people no longer think anything like them and you would be hard pressed to find like thinkers today. I think Franklin is pretty much an individual like no other and his humor is amazing. Adams is the same way but in Adams you find someone more mature in a lot of ways than Franklin could ever be. I wonder how much the 'free-thinking' of Franklin influences his maturity in nature.

[Stalwart]

Really, i just wish we could stay on topic. 

[-tronski-]

He was NEITHER, and first and foremost served his own ego.  His orders at Little Big Horn were to follow and scout the Native forces for the army following behind. He attacked to take all the glory for himself.

I've always enjoyed Stephen Ambrose's book: Crazy Horse and Custer: The Parallel Lives of Two American Warriors...I'd recommend it

Just don't say the word "politics" or make any flaming posts and it won't get locked.

"We" refers to those of Western European descent who settled in the U.S and decided it was "manifest destiny" that they own everything they saw. The early Spanish explorers had more to do with South American natives than North American natives. And yes, the demise of Native Americans in the U.S. was due partly as a direct result of the same Christian mentality that was responsible for more than 500 years of European death and destruction "in the name of God"...in other words, convert or perish. The South American natives perished from pure greed, compliments of the Spanish Conquistadors.

I've always believed American Indians were mostly victims to the wonderful English invention of "Terra nullius" ie. the land belongs to no-one, a wonderful way to legalise occupying native peoples (of the world) traditional lands either by force or coercion. That idea that is land is deemed vacant and not being used to produce is still pretty prevalent.

 Tronsky

[Saxman]

I find the period that Adams and Jefferson and Washington and Franklin and Hamilton lived in to be very fascinating as people no longer think anything like them and you would be hard pressed to find like thinkers today. I think Franklin is pretty much an individual like no other and his humor is amazing. Adams is the same way but in Adams you find someone more mature in a lot of ways than Franklin could ever be. I wonder how much the 'free-thinking' of Franklin influences his maturity in nature.

I keep hoping someone would try to adapt Jeff Shaara's Rise to Rebellion and The Glorious Cause into films. Unfortunately with how badly the mucked up Gods and Generals we're probably not even going to get The Last Full Measure, much less the American Revolution series.

[zack1234]

When do these 'English' actually become 'American'?
This idea 'It was them not us perception is a very interesting concept which has been used on a regular basis throughout history'

There is a very good book called 'The SS Alibi of a Nation' it basic outline is 'It was not us it was them'

This is not political this is historical perceptions on a HBO Television program, HBO make Television programs also on Vamipires etc.

HBO is American so will percieve History from a American perception, this is not political this is fact as every country will follow this line of thinking.

Every country will percieve history from there point of view at the exspense of other countries.
Films are fine to get a overview on historical facts but at the end of the day they are there to fill in the spaces between commercials (Ads for those who live in the colonies).

[Chalenge]

No HBO is opinion viewpoint and agenda driven just like everything else. Every now and then even HBO can come up with a good miniseries though I wish it was more precise and honest to all history in everything it presents

[zack1234]

History is can never be impartial it is always from a individuals perspective.
Amercan perspective is different from everyone's else's as is the English perspective.
Historical perspective changes overtime and will always change depending on how a individual or country wants to portray itself.

Washington,Jefferson etc were not Americans they were from English stock, 2nd sons of landowners and squires who wanted create Britain on a larger scale in the America's.

Oliver Cromwell chopped of Charlies boys head not for the people but for the people who had land and influence, not for the common man in the field.

[Saxman]

Washington,Jefferson etc were not Americans they were from English stock....

Y'know, that's part of the attitude that helped lead to a little thing here we call the War of 1812. Because the British didn't acknowledge naturalized citizenship, they felt themselves free to march aboard American ships and press-gang American citizens into British service, while in American territorial waters, and even American cities. Because they were "British Stock."