History Channel’s ‘America: The Story of Us’ Is a Hit!
by Jeffrey JenaLast night the premiere episode of the History Channel’s 12 hour, six part series called “America: The Story of Us,” was broadcast. If the rest of the series is anywhere as balanced and well produced as this chapter called “The Rebels,” it is an absolute must for family viewing.
“The Rebels” starts with the landing of John Rolfe at Jamestown and takes the viewer through the Revolution and The Battle of Yorktown. Featuring a mixture of reenactments, CGI and commentary by Americans from politics, media, business and academia the series is compelling and informative. Even the introduction by President Obama was palatable and free from references to himself.
There were several historical facts that took me by surprise and I always thought of myself as a bit of an expert on “Us.” I learned that the first African-Americans came to the future United States as contract workers in Jamestown, not as slaves. I was also unaware of the heroic experiment by George Washington at Valley Forge to inoculate his army against smallpox.
I could not find any information on the writers and producers of this excellent series on the History Channel’s website and the credits whizzed by pretty quick at the end of the show, but they are to be congratulated. In a brilliant marketing move, The History Channel’s also offering the series free on DVD to any school who would like one. The details for this offer are available here.
If nothing I have said convinces you that this is a great series, the fact that The Christian Scientist Monitor praised it and famed liberal TV reviewer Tom Shales panned it should have you setting your DVR.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
130 Comments
I was prepared for a beatdown and only DVR'd it. Glad to hear it was even handed.
Scary….I was literally just talking to my boss about this show. How I was mad that I missed it because I thought it started next weekend!!!!
Sounds like a good show but having the first undocumented president, one who admittedly doesn't like this country, give the intro is pretty disgusting.
Is this not the Matt Damon, Howard Zinn series that was pre-vilified here?
Dang! I missed the first one. Hope the re-show it in the near future.
Oh, shucks, the program started slightly prior to when I started recording it and I missed the President's intro. Much better opening image with the camera coming in over the Atlantic Ocean, and really digging what I've seen so far (through Pocahontas visiting England — not a lot, I know, but was ever-so-sleepy 'round midnight).
[...] here to read the rest: History Channel’s ‘America: The Story of Us’ Is a Hit! This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
wait a minute… i learned that the first Africans at Jamestown were freed! And the captain jailed for having slaves!?
Also any mention of the Pilgrim's charters & constitutions that directly influenced the charters & constitutions to come!?
I'm concerned that this may be conservative lite or big tent conservative… ????…. Did it mention how obsessed the founders were with Christianity, as in daily prayer, daily bible readings and constant christian bickerings?
I was predisposed to hate it, but figured I'd should only be fair and give it a try. Almost switched stations when the show was introduced by 24/7 Obama. But I stuck it out, and was rewarded with an excellent presentation. So far, no lefty bent at all, though there are many episodes to come, including the reprehensible Matt Damon reading the Declaration of Independence.
One thing that amused me. The beginnings of America in their version proved the proper conclusion that America is built on commerce, and has been from the beginnings at Jamestown. This is the same commerce that the Democrats reject and wish either to own or control completely. They also pointed out that Americans at the time of the Revolution were 20% richer, 25% less taxed, two inches taller and much healthier than their English counterparts. I think the producers may have been unaware of the irony. Certainly, they weren't able to discern any of the obvious connections to the present.
This is the reason I will not watch it.
Plymouth was of course hyper-religious. Jamestown, not so much: the place was a commercial venture, not a religious community (thirty years later, Virginia was the only colony to reject the Puritan revolution and remain Royalist).
No, that was Zinn's "A People's History of The United States" or some such. Code word "people's" means revisionist Commie BS.
I just watched 'what was life like in Jamestown' on the website and am effectually dissappointed. Why on earth would anyone want to travel and risk all that death & starting over, for commerce? WHAT COMMERCE!? Especially a group of… wait for it… pilgrims! Where was the praying & churches? NOT A ONE IN SITE. These folks came to flee the religious persecution of the NATIONALIZED CHURCHES. They came, at the calling of their God. I do not believe for one minute, these folks came for Commerce. What trading routes or riches were they to exactly be rewarded? What profits? Even Newt Gingrich was being used here, this is a decoy, a charlatan, a revisionist history like we sought independence from Britain over taxes! We didn't! We sought independence because of our belief in inalienable rights of life, liberty, property & pursuit of happiness endowed NOT BY A KING but by God. And thusly, no man can take away.
So… I think you should rethink this critique, or have David Barton or Dinesh D'Souza give a critique.
"…free from references to himself." — this cracked me up!
No, that's "A People's History of the United States"
Jamestown WAS a commercial venture…I think you may be confusing it with Plymouth.
"I just watched 'what was life like in Jamestown' on the website and am effectually dissappointed. Why on earth would anyone want to travel and risk all that death & starting over, for commerce? WHAT COMMERCE!? Especially a group of… wait for it… pilgrims!"
You need to go back to your history books. The Pilgrims were in Plymouth, not Virginia. The Jamestown settlers were primarily gentlemen-adventurers hungry for gold.
It was just a big commercial for banks and auto makers, or didn't you notice?
I thought Shales' review was kind of right on: the series looks great, but it's awfully whiz-bang & made for those with a short attention span. But if you're going to compete for youth's eyeballs against "Deadliest Warrior," I suppose to have to be flashy. Still going to dvr this and watch "The Tudors" in real time, though.
I was underwhelmed. The visuals were great, but the writing was awkward, repetitive (how many times did you hear variations of 'and this would lead to…' foreshadowing?), and frequently inaccurate. And the choices of talking heads was truly bizarre. Michael Douglas? Donald Trump?
The series, IMHO, blew. For one, The Messiah went on prior to the first show and praised everyday Americans and the society they built while ending with a call to reshape our society. The Messiah can't have it both ways. From what I saw (and keeping in mind that I am kind of a history snob) they skipped over approximately 120 years of history to get to the Revolution.
A few years back PBS ran a series called "Colonial House" where a group of people essentially re-enacted founding Jamestown/Plymouth, with some there for the jobs, others religious freedom, etc. It was fantastic–the amount of hard work shocked everyone, and the difficulty the governor had (a pastor in real life) in getting 20th century people to follow the religious strictures of the 17th was very funny. Overall it gave an excellent look at how hard it must have been.
Hey Strega –
I'm gonna be on DW May 11th (as it is now). VC vs Waffen SS. hope it comes out ok.
"From what I saw (and keeping in mind that I am kind of a history snob) they skipped over approximately 120 years of history to get to the Revolution."
Well, to be fair, most everyone does. It was basically a lot of Indian-killing and other-European-colony-absorbing, with the occasional spillover European dynastic war thrown in.
I saw some of it and was also underwhelmed. Speaking as someone who is going to be doing a documentary series soon, one thing wrong is with these dopey re-enactmentsy; the colonists (at least in the Revolutionary War segment) all had short hair – WRONG! Men had long hair back then and it was always "queued" in a pigtail. The rifle segment showed smoothbore muskets instead of Kentucky Long Rifles, and something I think is inherent (from watching alot of these and this also includes HBO's The Pacific) is that with re-enactments you get bad actors; these guys they focus on always look stiff, overdo it, or look like they're trying to strike a tuff-looking pose.
In the series I'm doing, I eschew completly re-enactments and will rely on stock footage, VO, and photos. KISS in other words. That's just me. Anybody else feel this way or no?
Not real historians. At least none that I'd waste time listening too.
Also Baron von Steuben was alluded to be gay. Huh? I'm a military historian and that's a new one on me. This is striking me as revisionist tripe.
Respect the Office if not the person.
If Obama was able to complete an opening monologue with out making it about him, or disparaging America, its a first as far as I've heard.
Then again, maybe the people that made this series loaded the teleprompter.
I was a bit underwhelmed. It wasnt the lefty America-was-built-on-hate fest that I was expecting… but the things they focused on seemed a bit unusual, and some of the history…was, imo, questionable in its accuracy. They almost lost me when that Louis Gates showed up. Glad I missed Chairman Obama's intro. The whole thing, for some reason, just smelled of revisionism… or perhaps glossing over.. despite that it was fairly even handed. Kind of like we were watching a film version of a modern public school history text book… sort of like things were left out (Lexington was mentioned, but not Concord… that sort of thing).
the first post should read "re-enactments". hello spell check! sorry.
ah yes i am! hmmm…
k… back to books…
well i did read they erected a cross, all were of course christians, and created a Church of England. so….
Keep watching, they touch on Plymouth next.
And the sharp-shooter had a distinct southern accent.
Muted the foreword. I will watch a couple more installments before passing judgement, but it wasn't the worst.
People infers collective.
Its the basis for their entire ideology. Everything belongs to every one, and since each individual is part of every one, they get everything. So no matter how much what they do personally hurts you, in the end you are better off for it.
Which also means, if your not for enriching everyone – yourself included – at your own expense, then you are against everyone, including yourself. Which makes you a nut bag, a criminal (for stealing what rightfully belongs to everyone), or more likely both.
Welcome to the realm of the modern liberal.
Emotions, not logic.
I was amused by the fact that the first Indian killings were sponsored by:………… other indians. Not that this absolved the pilgrims in my view, but it gave me pause.
I can POST villify that piece of sh!t Zinn if you like. It would be my pleasure in fact.
The next time I'm in or near Boston I plan to drink a few Samuel Adams lagers and PISS on his grave once I find out where he's planted.
As for Damon, that pathetic bird brain is a just another liberal joke.
Garden variety semi-literate high school dropout bullshitter. I tell him that to his face but he comes up to the middle of my chest, so I'd have to stoop over to get eye to eye with him.
No way!! Boy, hard to pick a side to root for in that one! Are you a military re-enactor? Or one of the in-studio experts? (please do not be some sort of neo-Nazi freakzoid) That show is all kinds of cheesy but a hell of a lot of fun to watch.
reading is fundamental, hollywoodron! ;-D
The concept of average people owning land, or much of anything else in England was a very foreign concept. 10% of the landed gentry owned 90% of the real estate. They were represented (and still are) by the House of Lords.
To this very day most of England is owned by less than 300,000 people/families. EVERYBODY rents.
So, the allure of coming to America was land ownership. They talked about the Crown prohibition of westward expansion which the Colonists promptly ignored and continued to move west.
Well, at that point in western civilization evolution, being a Christian is pretty much a foregone conclusion. It was more of question of which flavor.
And at that time you're King's choice had an awful lot to what you said and did in public, than your own personal views.
Turns out it was quiet a stroke of luck that rulers in Britain at that time decided shipping them off to the new world was a good way of getting rid of them.
I'm convinced that urge to stand up for personal convictions, authority be damned, is one of the biggest roots on our tree of liberty.
Couerl: I know what you mean. I heard "Indians," and "Pocahontas" and thought "here it comes." But they treated it all quite fairly. They also dealt with African settlers and African slaves quite honestly without the usual over-emphasis on white oppression and the current politically-correct characterization of the Rebels as nothing more than old white slave-owners. I doubt they'll keep up this balanced presentation, but at least the first two hours were a pleasant surprise.
The entire concept of the free market is that We The People, each and every individual, gets to make our own decisions. We decide how to make money, we decide how to spend money, and we do it for our own reasons. And against conventional wisdom, the greater good is indeed served.
To me, the Revolution embodies the idea that its real, We The People, make our own decisions with better outcomes, than any central committee could possibly come up with.
The Soviet Union proves to me beyond doubt that the Founding Fathers were not categorical wrong.
America, the world around me, everything I see, I hear, I experience, proves to me they were categorically right.
Yeah, and Lincoln was too… In fact everyone is gay, huzzah!
Really…
Hollywood: There was some mention of religion, but since it was almost entirely descriptive, they may be planning on covering it as a separate topic in another episode. The settlers at Jamestown were loyal to the crown, and Anglican. I personally tend to think of religion as being more important in the formation of the American character and American exceptionalism than in the physical formation of the future nation itself.
The colonists were British. Britian was the "mother country", the colonists were subjects of the Crown and they wasn't alot to bitch about from either party. As generations went by the idea of "Americans" or a people that were other than British really wasn't an issue. The French/Indian War cost England a buttload of $$$ (or pounds really, no icon for that) and that when the taxation issues began.
No Colonist would have called the British Army "the Redcoats" or the "the British", the Colonists were British. Maybe the "regulars" or something like that.
As the poster above said, nearly 180 YEARS of relative calm and brotherhood. Not compelling viewing, hence on to the Stamp Act, the Boston Massacre and then the Revolution.
Same thing was done in a medievil British setting. It was harrowing. People got legitmately really sick and had skin conditions and some real serious medical issues to the point where thet had to pull people out of the experiment/show. Really tough going. Work hard all day, drink some and pass out from tiredness.
EdSki: I don't really have anything to add to that.
All in all, I was pleasently suprised for the same reason as everybody else.
I expected a program that would have white skinned, blue eyed DEVILS jumping off boats, battle axes in hand and start killing, raping and pillaging everything in sight, like the Vikings arriving at the mosastery at Lyndesfarn.
It was produced for History Channel by Nutopia …a new production company started by Jane Root who is the former President of Discovery Channel.
Executive Producer: Jane Root
Co-Executive Producer: Michael Jackson
Series Showrunner: Ben Goold
I was underwhelmed too. Having Barry introduce and close the show was almost untenable to me. Having some of the talking heads so clearly partisan leftists, had me puzzled and on guard. The context of our founding was glossed over. Skipping the early history of the colonies prior to revolution provides context. These colonists were British subjects and it took a lot for them to rise up and overcome opposition to separate. There were a lot of colonists who had vested interests this way or that, and that of course is glossed over.
I guess overall I'd give it a C+ so far. It is watchable, but the context of the day is missing as is a lot of the depth of characters involved. For instance, they glossed over France's decision to help out early on,…. as if G.B. and France weren't at war. And what of the southern US where Spain had a foothold in Florida? New Orleans? South America and Mexico?
You can't include everything and get a good watchable series, I know, but they could have really done better at providing the context I think it necessary to show just how special America is and how she came to be that way. My expectations for the show are way down, though, I'll probably watch just to see the revisionism.
"Even the introduction by President Obama was palatable and free from references to himself."
Obviously, somebody else wrote it.
\”and created a Church of England. so….\”
Yep, the origin of the Virginia Whiskeypalian Church: every bit as devout
as tee-off time and cocktail hour permits.
Asserting the at least the existence of a Protestant Church was considered
politically essential on a continent to which the Spaniards and French
laid claim. That doesn't mean that the colonists were especially pious.
\”Mass\”????
Morgan's riflemen were Virginians.
I watched parts of it and thought it was interesting. I was flipping back and forth between it and the Universe series.
It amazes me how all matter in our known universe came from something the size of a single atom in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. If one can believe all that, and more, then believing there is a God ought to be an intellectual walk in the park.
.
I was thinking the exact same thing as I was watching last night. Leaving out even a mention of the French and Indian War left a big hole in the story of the run up to the Revolution. England had just completed a very expensive world war — the "French and Indian" portion of which — the crown argued — was waged to protect the colonies and colonists from said French and Indians. As you point out, this was the start of the tax troubles.
But, on the whole, the show was pretty good…
I know, but I seriously doubt that they had developed such a southern drawl so early on. I could very well be wrong.
Flipped channel at the sight of the foreword. Forgot and missed some of the beginning.
Everybody in the UK rents! The UK's homeownership rate is 69%. The USA's is 68%.
We learned in junior high school that blacks came over as indentured servants (along with a lot of whites) in the very very early years of America. But ultimately it was more cost effective to just own slaves permanently. By the time I got into high school the history books never mentioned the indentured servitude history of blacks, only the slavery.
Yeah, that was news to me as well.
I do know that his military resume from the "old country" was somewhat dubious, but as history proves, he (literally) knew the drill.
I wasn't able to see it and I did DVR it, and I will be delighted to see it now…..I was looking forward to watch it and now I will not auto DVR something like this…. thanks!
No WAY!!!
It was pretty good, but some places sould have been more interesting. A few facts were incorrect, and they didn't have many events.
I share that conviction. I think it played a huge part in forming our nation, and it's something that's sadly lacking in the citizens today.
This program was krapp – I had really looked forward to it – it was shallow and rediculous. History channel has done better – The War of 1812 comes to mind.
I will be surprised if it doesn't turn into an "All White people are evil!" fest. Isn't that SOP for "historians"' these days?
About the only thing I would have done differently would have been to spend a little more time on Jamestown prior to the tobacco crop taking off. If you watched the show you'd only think that it was disease and the natives that led to 90% mortality of the first settlers, when another big factor was America's orginal experiment with a socialist commune. Other than that (and Obama), pretty good.
Not the numbers I'm finding. I getting from high 40's to 58%. it's lower than the U.S. by all data I see. Certainly not higher than the U.S.
yah and i just want to put Christian back into Western Civilization, being really the essential element, unless we want to tie in "white skin"… cuz if you look around at all the world at that time, there was no other civilization, tribe or religion or even Atheists being universal, that did, expanded, sought, evolved, advanced, & civilized more than the Western Civilization… and why? what was the only difference? other than whitey???? CHRISTIANITY! Nothing else was unique to Europe, no geological hogwash, not atheism, not paganism, not warm air, nothing… yet Atheists all around want to claim Western Civ as their own… balderdash!!! What a bunch of liars… oh wait, of course they can lie, why not!? No silly God telling them not to. Or making them feel guilty when they do!
Actually Dan, I kept digging. You are correct to the best I can find for recent numbers. I stand corrected. Truly dumb is not admitting when I'm wrong. I was thinking pre-industrial age England.
Here's a little bit of info confirming your numbers:
At only 69.8 per cent of total households, this is the lowest share since just after Labour came to power.
Of these households, a little more than eight million have a mortgage – the lowest level for 20 years and a further sign that young, and traditionally more indebted, people are struggling to get on to the housing ladder. The figures also show that the share of people having to rent has hit the highest level since the 1970s.
Philip Hammond, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said: "The last Conservative government created a revolution of home ownership in Britain, with millions more able to achieve their dream.
"In Brown's Britain, that dream is being shattered."
just read they erected a cross, a church, & all were required to go to mass or lose their rations… so…..
Respect the office enough to demand it be occupied by an eligible citizen!
I could have done without those with known liberal leanings (like Douglas and that news guy who I can not tolerate) commenting..Hollywood and the media weren't there when this history was made and they don't need to be there now. It added NOTHING to the effort.
For some reason..anything that is made now..we need to see some recognizable face to validate it..and Obama..he is a joke. He has no knowledge nor respect for, what our Founding Fathers did and why they did it. I was personally offended by this Marxist's insincere comments.
Other than that, I was surprised that what I saw appeared to be fairly even handed..
Yep. The Virginia Company of London was a joint-stock corporation formed to generate profits for its investors. They hoped to find gold, but didn't. However, John Rolfe successfully crossed cold-hardy local tobacco with flavorful Caribbean tobacco- and gold resulted.
"WRONG! Men had long hair back then and it was always "queued" in a pigtail"
Except the aristocracy, who wore wigs, and shaved or crew-cut their natural hair to fit underneath. However, they would never have appeared outside the house un-peruked.
Just one addition to my previous comments..noticed that our Founding Fathers got Washington, D.C. put back together a hell of allot faster after being attacked and burned in 'those' days..than all of hangwringers and nitpickers can with the twin towers in NYC. Something is wrong when we let 'special' interest groups, yes, I said special interest groups, including the families of the victims; waylay this nation's recovery.
Guess we have no 'grownups' available to take this in hand and get it done..
Yep. "Iron Age". I liked both those shows. PBS did several series similar to Colonial House, set in different times. Seems like that stopped, which is disappointing. Anyway, seeing what they went through makes me very proud of my ancestors, and a bit guilty about how easy I have it. It also tells me that we (constitutionalists) have the strength born into us to stand up to big gov't.
I'm watching on Comcast On-Demand, and the Obama intro isn't there, thankfully. At first I was totally turned off by the lib talking heads, like most people have pointed out here ("professor" Gates? M. Douglass?). But I found it hilarious that they were unwittingly defending conservative, small gov't, Founding Fathers' views.
Yes, I recently heard that from a history teacher myself. Except he went further and said "pedophile." My usual response to these sorts of claims is just to inwardly groan and say, "Whatever!" Unless they have photographic evidence or video footage, they can't prove it and I can't disprove it.
What I can't figure out is if the revisionists of today continue to say these types of things to discredit historical figures and knock them off their pedestals, or to normalize today's deviants by claiming that great and respected characters in history did it too, so …
And, yes, the Bank of America ads are annoying and very in-your-face. I guess they had to give something up for a fairly accurate portrayal of the founding.
Why are you possibly interested if the show is "balanced" when your average commenter on this site refers to the President of the United States as "the Messiah" or "Chairman Obama?"
Most of the commenters here just come off as a bunch of whiny, bitter old White Men who can't stop crying over the fact that our wonderful country has moved past their "good old days" that never really were.
In this video clip Tim Gunn a fashion consultant states:
". . .the country was born out of revolution, and, that sort of rallying spirit of win, win, win and fight back the oppressors persists. . ." with his most unappealing "valley girl" drawl/pause/drawl. (ugh)
Brokaw: "we were effectively gorilla fighters"
Brian Williams: . . ."two things, memo to the British forces: ixnay on the red suits. That was not tactically the best move. . ."
Those comments don't reveal any pride for America. If anything, these comments appear to be more of the same we've come to expect from these drones. It sounds like they prepared notes for the next generation of revolutionaries. The clincher came with the continuation of Brian Williams statement:
". . .number 2, if you're going up against guys who are using blankets for shoes in the middle of winter, bring your best game. . ."
The next two speakers were easier to take as the philosophy can be applied to either side the patriotic fence:
Another speaker, not identified in the film (@1:40) states: ". . .The American Revolution, in one sense, is an example of a war in which the weaker contestant prevails – because it is more determined to persevere."
David Baldacci: ". . .The British Army was fighting for a king. The Americans were fighting for their lives. And it's not so much about how much equipment you have or what training you have. It's what's in your belly. It's what's in your heart. You know you are fighting for your lives and a way of life, as opposed to fighting for a monarch who you may not care about or may not love, but it's your job. That's all the difference. You are going to fight harder if you are fighting for your own way of life and your families."
In this video clip Tim Gunn a fashion consultant states:
". . .the country was born out of revolution, and, that sort of rallying spirit of win, win, win and fight back the oppressors persists. . ." with his most unappealing "valley girl" drawl/pause/drawl. (ugh)
Brokaw: "we were effectively gorilla fighters"
Brian Williams: . . ."two things, memo to the British forces: ixnay on the red suits. That was not tactically the best move. . ."
Those comments don't reveal any pride for America. If anything, these comments appear to be more of the same we've come to expect from these drones. It sounds like they prepared notes for the next generation of revolutionaries. The clincher came with the continuation of Brian Williams statement:
". . .number 2, if you're going up against guys who are using blankets for shoes in the middle of winter, bring your best game. . ."
The next two speakers were easier to take as the philosophy can be applied to either side the patriotic fence:
Another speaker, not identified in the film (@1:40) states: ". . .The American Revolution, in one sense, is an example of a war in which the weaker contestant prevails – because it is more determined to persevere."
David Baldacci: ". . .The British Army was fighting for a king. The Americans were fighting for their lives. And it's not so much about how much equipment you have or what training you have. It's what's in your belly. It's what's in your heart. You know you are fighting for your lives and a way of life, as opposed to fighting for a monarch who you may not care about or may not love, but it's your job. That's all the difference. You are going to fight harder if you are fighting for your own way of life and your families."
In this video clip Tim Gunn a fashion consultant states:
". . .the country was born out of revolution, and, that sort of rallying spirit of win, win, win and fight back the oppressors persists. . ." with his most unappealing "valley girl" drawl/pause/drawl. (ugh)
Brokaw: "we were effectively gorilla fighters"
Brian Williams: . . ."two things, memo to the British forces: ixnay on the red suits. That was not tactically the best move. . ."
Those comments don't reveal any pride for America. If anything, these comments appear to be more of the same we've come to expect from these drones. It sounds like they prepared notes for the next generation of revolutionaries. The clincher came with the continuation of Brian Williams statement:
". . .number 2, if you're going up against guys who are using blankets for shoes in the middle of winter, bring your best game. . ."
The next two speakers were easier to take as the philosophy can be applied to either side the patriotic fence:
Another speaker, not identified in the film (@1:40) states: ". . .The American Revolution, in one sense, is an example of a war in which the weaker contestant prevails – because it is more determined to persevere."
David Baldacci: ". . .The British Army was fighting for a king. The Americans were fighting for their lives. And it's not so much about how much equipment you have or what training you have. It's what's in your belly. It's what's in your heart. You know you are fighting for your lives and a way of life, as opposed to fighting for a monarch who you may not care about or may not love, but it's your job. That's all the difference. You are going to fight harder if you are fighting for your own way of life and your families."
part 2..I am surprised the History Channel Titled 'America the story of Us.' the title should be United Staes of America'
We are the United States noT America; please read on;
Correction Needed
The statement my friend made may be true but it does not make it literally, physically or geographically correct. This is also an ignorant statement / thought process. It must be easier to say American than United States of America citizen. Nevertheless it is ignorant and lazy. It seems part of a brain washed way. Instead of saying United States of America say U.S.A. or U.S. citizen it’s easy, and shortened but true. Another reality is Mexicans, Canadians, Hawaiians, Costa Ricans, Columbians all Americans. Look on a map there is no nation called America only a continent.
U.S. citizens hopefully you start referring us as U.S. instead of America. When you think about it. It could be thought of as being slander.
United We Stand Divided We Fall. Thank you for your time
"Messiah" is your side's title for that dude, not ours. And try "young colorful females" instead of "old white men", and you might be closer to the truth of who posts here, you racist, sexist, cliche of the left.
Sorry, I don't know anyone who has ever called him "Messiah" but you seem to be much more comfortable presuming all the people you disagree with think the same thing.
But if I misspoke, maybe I shouldn't have said just the commenters are "whiny, bitter old White Men who can't stop crying over the fact that our wonderful country has moved past their "good old days" that never really were"– I should've included the owner of the site and all the oversensitive, cliche-mongers he has write on the site. And all the young, colorful females who can't seem to get past their guy lost an election.
Yes, you are sorry, for accusing me of what you do – classic projection tactics. I'm not presuming anything – look at history, baby, look at what Oprah said about him. Or should I say "her-story", so you'll understand exactly what I'm talking about. My guy didn't lose any election. My country has been losing for the past 100 years, and if you're fine with that, have a great time waiting in line for your handouts that I finance.
You know, I have always wondered what would have happened had Parlement taken the wind out of the The Revolutions sails by granting them a number of seats, say two per colony. It's not as if it would have changed the balance of power in Parlement. The Southern colonies would have been comfortably Tory, the New England colonies comfortably Whig, with a little shifting between the middle Atlantic colonies.
Actually as I understand it, what we know think of as Cockney on one had, and the Southern Drawl on the other, was pretty much the English of the lower and upper classes. What we now think off as UK English had more to do with the Industrial Revolution and the standardization of English in the 19th century.
Sorry, I don't watch Oprah but you've please got to elaborate on how the United States has possibly been "losing" for the past 100 years. We've won wars, turned around recessions and depressions, given all of our citizens the rights promised to every created equal man, gone to the Moon, done good around the world, punished wrongdoers, cared for those who couldn't care for themselves. My country is the greatest in the world.
How is yours "losing?" We're wildly intrigued…
Many Brits own their own homes but odds are they don't own the land it sits on. Much UK land is subject to long ter ground leases. 99 years is common, as long as 900 years not unheard of. The buildings erected on such leaseholds are bought and sold subject to the terms of the lease.
The practice is a residue of feudalism. When the King bestowed the title of Duke, Earl or Baron he granted land with the title. This "entailed fee" could not be sold or otherwise transfered as the current owner or his creditors pleased. It passed along with the title to the male heir. [Think Jane Austen and daughters left homeless because the estate will go to a despised cousin] While the feudal fee were abolished, the titled families often clung tenaciously to the land itself. The Duke of Westminster is said to be the wealthiest man in the nation because much of London sits on land his family still owns.
First of all, what's with the name change? Second-string coming in as the cleanup crew? There's a definite change in attack mode now – suddenly so patriotic. "We're wildly……". How many personalities are included in that last post? So, you didn't watch your savior's acceptance speech that took place in Grant Park, not 2 blocks from where I live in Chicago? You didn't hear what Oprah said? Interesting. YOUR country is becoming what you dream of – a tyranny. MY country has been losing the fight for liberty since the progs infested in the early 1900s. All the ambition you list is over under big gov't. OVER.
You didn't give a single example of how your country has been losing for 100 years.
Perhaps you just have what they call a "loser mentality" since I'm hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't think the United States has been winning more than anyone else for the last century.
So, once again, give examples of how your country is losing.
I still haven't made it through the whole first episode but what I did see was decent but the film makers missed some prime opportunities to bring to light some of the more ignored people and events around the shaping of this country.
They did gloss over the fact that it was John Smith's dictate that everybody must work or they would not share the fruits of the labor of others.
Another part I was disheartened by was the part on the famous ride by Paul Revere to alert the colonist to the coming of the British. They focused completely on Revere and left out his companions William Dawes and Samuel Prescott, both of which by some accounts rode further and alerted more then Revere did.
Some of it I chalk up to too much material and not enough time, but adding at least a passing reference to those two events wouldn't have added any length to the project and couldn't have been added seamlessly.
Somebody mentioned the smallpox inoculation program by George Washington. This was actually necessitated after the army went into Canada pursuing the British and lost over half their number due to the disease. Combat only accounted for about 100 deaths while small pox deaths were in the thousands.
So far, based on my very limited viewing I would give them a B.
Another name change. Just how many people am I talking with? I am far from a loser – I'm a female engineer who paid her way through college and succeeds in a male-dominated field. And guess what – I LIKE my male colleages.
How has the country been losing to progressives? (sigh) I guess you're too young and entitled to get it, so I'll spell it out – didn't I already point out the loss of liberty? But I guess you wouldn't see that as a loss, would you? You need someone to tell you what to do. Regulations, regulations, regulations. Income tax – enacted by Progs. and not a choice. YES. It was a choice. Social Security – Ponzi, I'll never see a dime. Medicare/Medicaid – same as above. State's rights – GONE. Voting – corrupted by gerrymandering areas by progs/dems. Public schools -indoctrination, 'nuf said School Vouchers – denied, to FORCE public indoc. Church – don't even start – there is NOTHING in the Constitution or Dec. of Ind. about seperation of church & state. Those are just a few examples of the tearing down of OUR country's principles. Try reading the 5000 Year Leap.
You must be logged in to post a comment.