Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree that the jumping around from guest to guest and back again is very distracting. It's impossible to take the emotional journey with each guest which is what the intent is.
One very important and often unknown historical fact that was highlighted last night in Sally Field's family history is that there really was a great deal of American in-fighting between Patriots and Loyalists, and some of it, as Sally's family experienced, was brutal. I have some Loyalists in my tree who were forced out of Massachusetts (financially they were ruined, but fortunately not physically harmed). For all the negativity about the British Empire, there was the positive that Loyalists were given substantial amounts of land in Canada (Nova Scotia for my ancestors). Britain could have ignored the plight of Loyalists or could have only offered small tidbits of land to say "thank you for your loyalty, so come up to Canada to help build the Empire".
I remember my high school history teacher stressing that even at the end of the war, only about a third of the population was in support of the revolution. A third was actively in favor and supported it. A third opposed them and most were forced out into Canada. The other third did their thing and whoever won won. The whole idea that the 'people' rose against Britan is a long lasting bit of propaganda.
There was also a war within a war as the patriots burned out their neighbors the loyalists and visa versa which is generally ignored as not fitting into the mantra when teaching our history to kids especially. You don't deal with the real history some times until college.
I also remember my history professor in college had one finger missing from one hand and two from the other. He was from pensulvania. The lived in a mining area and children worked the sluice. I don't remember what they were mining but small children grabbed hunks washed out from the sluice on a grid. If fingers were lost there were enough left to work. He was working at five. He was an amazing teacher and I think in part it came from him living the life instead of reading about it.
I really liked last night's episode, but I wish it could have been two hours. We just got a "taste" of a few stories then whoosh, they moved on. Yes, the jumping around is very annoying, especially when all 3 guests have ancestors with similar themes. The show is only 45 minutes, so I agree with the other poster who said they should just give 15 solid minutes to each guest and stop the jumping around.
I'm frustrated by the DNA tests they use. The people just get "European," but nothing about WHERE in Europe they came from. Sting was told he had Scandinavian ("Viking") roots, but it wasn't very clear. How come if someone has African roots, they can tell what region of Africa, and they can tell the difference between "South Asian" and "Southeast Asian," but not different parts of Europe? My test with Ancestry DNA gave me LOTS of info about my roots in all different areas within Europe. Maybe that's why the recurring attitude on the show is that "European" equals "boring." If someone is given a pie chart with 100% European, of course that will be "boring." They never look at all the slices in that pie.
This seems to go along with the idea that the whole tone is deep and emotional when talking about slavery and very personal about the suffering of someone's ancestors. Then we come to the British Workhouse, which was the in country solution to excess unwanted population and virtually a slave operation. Is it worse to work small British kids to death or enslave small black kids who at least had some value. Those poor British kids didn't. Many of them died young but there were plenty more. But is there any emotion or was there any in depth description of the places? No. Why should he, since its just 'academic' to him. And that comment to Sting that at least his ancestors weren't convicts. I loved Sting's reply, but he didn't like the comment.
Just give him a show he can talk about black people and let him emote all he wants without being insulting to others. I would call the comment to Sting uncalled for.
I agree too about the dna. Do the FULL test on European ancestry for all the guests too, since we know they can.
I had loyalists too, along with the Rev. War soldiers. My loyalists were puzzling to me at first until I realized that they were loyalists--they were a small group who intermarried and did not spring from the very early settlers. Once couple came from Holland, another couple were Ulster Scots, and so on. At the time of the Revolution they were relatively new, not established, and apparently had no gripe with the British. The families left all the had and fled to Canada after the war.
The ones who fought in the Revolutionary War were farmers and their ancestors had been here since Day One. I guess they must have felt that they owned this land and no one was going to tell them what to do. But they were not rich so they really didn't have much to lose either way. Most enlisted but I think a few were drafted. This was New England.
I wouldn't exactly call Europe "tiny" even though Africa might have more square miles. Besides, most Americans have European ancestry, but we identify the region of Europe ("I'm Scandinavian") or the nationality ("I'm German"); we don't just say "I'm European." Again, if we can get our "European" ancestry broken down by region/country from Ancestry DNA, Family Tree DNA, etc, why can't the guests on the show?
Exactly. I have a LOT of Scots from multiple sides, (and been told I 'look' it) and stubborn runs in the family. I would not settle for a bland 'european'. I intend to send in money to ancestry, but wasn't going to bother if it said I was European.
And 'European' doesn't exist anymore than 'African'. There are differing languages, customs, cultures, dress before modern times, and so on. Not to mention the way nobody calls themselves 'European'. Same goes for Africa. And what about the full ancestry for those black guests who are actually more 'european' than 'african'? Talk about that in the same breath as where their ancestors came from in Africa.
I wish pbs would let you donate by program or exclude some. I'd exclude this one since its pushing racism by picking and choosing which 'matters'. Got my Scots dander up there.
Exactly. I have a LOT of Scots from multiple sides, (and been told I 'look' it) and stubborn runs in the family. I would not settle for a bland 'european'. I intend to send in money to ancestry, but wasn't going to bother if it said I was European.
And 'European' doesn't exist anymore than 'African'. There are differing languages, customs, cultures, dress before modern times, and so on. Not to mention the way nobody calls themselves 'European'. Same goes for Africa. And what about the full ancestry for those black guests who are actually more 'european' than 'african'? Talk about that in the same breath as where their ancestors came from in Africa.
I wish pbs would let you donate by program or exclude some. I'd exclude this one since its pushing racism by picking and choosing which 'matters'. Got my Scots dander up there.
I agree with all of you.
It's interesting on the show when they do show the different regions of Africa where a black person's DNA and genetic ancestry came from but I wish they would do the same for the white guests
they only ever do the Y-DNA and dont even give the subclade.
my DNA test results showed alot more than that, like other posters on here have said too.
But not only for European genes, I also wish they had done that same testing when they had the program about the Jewish guests like Alan Dershowitz and Carole King
it would have been interesting to see how much European and how much Middle Eastern genetic make up they had.
Like with this latest show and Dr. Chopra South Asian/Middle Eastern admixture, and when they show how much European mixture alot of the black guests have too.
I remember my high school history teacher stressing that even at the end of the war, only about a third of the population was in support of the revolution. A third was actively in favor and supported it. A third opposed them and most were forced out into Canada. The other third did their thing and whoever won won. The whole idea that the 'people' rose against Britan is a long lasting bit of propaganda.
There was also a war within a war as the patriots burned out their neighbors the loyalists and visa versa which is generally ignored as not fitting into the mantra when teaching our history to kids especially. You don't deal with the real history some times until college.
I also remember my history professor in college had one finger missing from one hand and two from the other. He was from pensulvania. The lived in a mining area and children worked the sluice. I don't remember what they were mining but small children grabbed hunks washed out from the sluice on a grid. If fingers were lost there were enough left to work. He was working at five. He was an amazing teacher and I think in part it came from him living the life instead of reading about it.
its interesting what you say and true.
you never here about the loyalists in american history. There was more than people think
some historians say possibly as much as 15-20% of americans were loyalists in the revolution
if thats true, thats alot.
where Im from, one of the most famous battles of the american revolution is King's Mountain.
It was so important that Thomas Jefferson called it "the turning point of the war", since it's effects led to events at Yorktown,VA
but they always talk about how the Patriots (militia) whipped the hell out of the British, when in fact it was a loyalist militia they fought against with a regular british officer named Col. Ferguson in command and only a small unit of actual British regular army soldiers with them.
the other interesting thing is that the local patriot militia was made up of men who had largely stayed out of the war and didnt care about its outcome one way or the other until later and only then they joined up.
It was american against american. and after the battle, more loyalists joined the patriot side.
People also dont know that many americans switched sides sometimes throughout the war off and on, depending on circumstances that always changed.
Ive also read one account, about a Scottish immigrant who bought some land in Georgia just before the war broke out. At first he wanted to be neutral and just live in his land and make a living.
But the local patriot militia came by and asked him which side he supported and he told them, he was neutral and wanted to stay out of it.
So they came back and burned his house and some of is livestock.
They felt if he wasnt with them, he was against them.
After that happened, he naturally joined the Loyalist militia and hated the patriots for what they did.
That type of stuff happened all over america, and most people saw the war as a chance to get revenge or get back at their neighbors for earlier feuds so if someone you hated was a patriot you might become a loyalist just to have the legal sanction and opportunity to burn him out and his family or even kill him in his own home and claim it was just because he was a patriot.
you never here about the loyalists in american history. There was more than people think
some historians say possibly as much as 15-20% of americans were loyalists in the revolution
if thats true, thats alot.
where Im from, one of the most famous battles of the american revolution is King's Mountain.
It was so important that Thomas Jefferson called it "the turning point of the war", since it's effects led to events at Yorktown,VA
but they always talk about how the Patriots (militia) whipped the hell out of the British, when in fact it was a loyalist militia they fought against with a regular british officer named Col. Ferguson in command and only a small unit of actual British regular army soldiers with them.
the other interesting thing is that the local patriot militia was made up of men who had largely stayed out of the war and didnt care about its outcome one way or the other until later and only then they joined up.
It was american against american. and after the battle, more loyalists joined the patriot side.
People also dont know that many americans switched sides sometimes throughout the war off and on, depending on circumstances that always changed.
Ive also read one account, about a Scottish immigrant who bought some land in Georgia just before the war broke out. At first he wanted to be neutral and just live in his land and make a living.
But the local patriot militia came by and asked him which side he supported and he told them, he was neutral and wanted to stay out of it.
So they came back and burned his house and some of is livestock.
They felt if he wasnt with them, he was against them.
After that happened, he naturally joined the Loyalist militia and hated the patriots for what they did.
That type of stuff happened all over america, and most people saw the war as a chance to get revenge or get back at their neighbors for earlier feuds so if someone you hated was a patriot you might become a loyalist just to have the legal sanction and opportunity to burn him out and his family or even kill him in his own home and claim it was just because he was a patriot.
Many a war is both a revolution and a civil war, depending on which side your on. And most end up on the side that they survive best with at the time. And it gives you a chance to make war and take from the neighbors you don't like and wish to be gone. The movie The Patriot was actually based on real people. The British commander who went burning was real, and his job was to officially terrorized civilians. And the same sort of reprisals took place. It was hardly an 'honorable' war but like all civil wars one of considerable personal vendettas on all sides.
I wish pbs would let you donate by program or exclude some. I'd exclude this one since its pushing racism by picking and choosing which 'matters'. Got my Scots dander up there.
Contributions to PBS do not work that way. The shows are produced by production companies and your local station chooses which programs to air. Not contributing to a local PBS station won't have any effect on the type of programs being produced.
Many a war is both a revolution and a civil war, depending on which side your on. And most end up on the side that they survive best with at the time. And it gives you a chance to make war and take from the neighbors you don't like and wish to be gone. The movie The Patriot was actually based on real people. The British commander who went burning was real, and his job was to officially terrorized civilians. And the same sort of reprisals took place. It was hardly an 'honorable' war but like all civil wars one of considerable personal vendettas on all sides.
yeah i know what you are talking about.
the British commander in the THE PATRIOT movie was based on Col. Bannistare Tarleton and he had a particularly nasty reputation, in real life, among the Patriots in the southern theatre.
He even called them out by posting a note in a fort calling them cowards and not really man enough to come out and face him etc...
Mel Gibson's character was largely based on Francis Marion too and others, even maybe Patrick Henry to some degree.
but, something happened where the patriots thought some of Tarleton's British regulars had purposefully murdered un-armed patriot militiamen who were surrendering in a recent battle.
Most historians think it was actually just a case of very bad communication during the actual fighting/battle. But then alot of propaganda also followed, but in any case, when the patriot militia did attack the loyalists militia at King's Mountain, some sources say they were shouting "give them Tarleton's play" as they ran up the mountain, killing the loyalists and Col. Ferguson.
they were getting revenge against the British and loyalists for what they seriously thought Col.Tarleton's men had done to some of their own earlier so, at first, they didnt give quarter to the loyalists who wanted to surrender. And still kept killing them as they tried to give up their weapons.
They even quart-martialed some of them and started to hang these unarmed, loyalist americans who were trying to surrender.
Only after they had already hung 9 of them, did John Sevier, one of the most well known patriot militia leaders, step in and made them stop. Then they just took the rest prisoner.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
