The idea that this movie plays fast and loose with facts is amusing. I guess if people read something in a history book or biography assume it is factual. Don't be naive! People have always lied. People have always embellished. People have always twisted and distorted the truth to fit their agenda....be that selling their book or promoting their agenda or political persuasion or making someone look good or look bad.
shareVery good point. It does raise the question: it (the series -- or any other one) twists facts in contradiction with...what? Obviously, only other accounts that have come to be accepted. In the end, history really is only the retelling of events, as seen through someone else's lens. Dates and names are essentially the only things one can be sure of (and even those only to a degree).
shareVery true. The "facts" of history usually depend on which side is telling the story. Also consider that the "official history" is usually written by the winners. No chance of any bias there, right? LOL
shareif studied properly, indeed they are.
your point is incredibly wrong in assuming that consumers of printed history (and the like) only read a single book or two and then move on to another subject.
yes -- i agree that doing so would be "just another version or two" -- but no one serious about history does such a thing.
when one reads dozens of books, written decades ago or more recently -- and studies other actual artifacts (letters, public records, news accounts, locations...) on john adams, let's say -- more-than-generalized data is verified from endless sources, and these volumes of corroborating information become very clear as indisputable fact.
and though the losers of the war, the british themselves have more accurate records of what went on during our revolution than is portrayed in this abomination from the history channel.
Yes, if studied properly, people look at all accounts and take them all into consideration. That would be in a perfect world. But we don't live in a perfect world. Most tend to read all size then choose the one in which they want to believe. That is especially true when politics are involved, and that certainly comes into play in any story of the founding fathers.
You fall into that unfortunate category who has no credibility due to your use of the word "abomination" in regard to this admittedly fictionalized accounting. The history channel has said all along that the miniseries was fictionalized, but you have chosen to ignore that as it would get in the way of your whining. Sorry, your opinion is suspect and should not be considered.
I agree it shows that everyone has an agenda and is biases.
Dozens of books can often be traced back to the same (often wron) source data.
This was not a docu-drama....it was a dramatization based on historical facts. The movie Titanic was also based on historical facts.....as was Braveheat and The Sands of Iwo Jima, Midway, Pearl Harbor, Apollo 13, a The Hayfields and McCoys, etc.
Do you ever wonder what makes some people complain the way they do? I suspect that some are just trolls who like to get a rise out of people. But I think others are people who feel the need to validate their existence by proving their superiority. In your OP you called them amusing. I agree they are to a point, but when I stop and think about it I also find them rather sad.
shareI do enjoy getting a rise out of intellectually arrogant people like you who look down their snooty noses at anything that does not align with their paradigm.
Take any historical event and you can find numerous accounts. Who killed JFK? Was this country founded as a Christian nation? Who discovered America? What happened to the Mayans? Was Andrew Jackson a hero or brutal Indian killer? Whitewater....Watergate....Vince Foster....Bush vs Gore....did Ike know about Pearl Harbor before the attack? Most people now do not think so but I remember my grandfather telling me this was widely believed by many people in 1941.
Did most slave owners abuse their slaves or treat them fairly and humanely? Ask Hollywood (and many history books) this question and you'd assume all slaves were beaten and abused when in fact most were treated as valuable assets and owners would no more abuse a slave than they would flog a prized horse or beloved hunting dog. Andrew Jackson was criticized by some for housing slaves in the same 2 story log cabin that Andrew Jackson used to live in.
BTB.....people think the Battle of New Orleans was led by Col Jackson. You know, "In 1814 we took a little trip, along with Col Jackson down the mighty Mississipp". The FACT is, he was a 2 star, Major General at the time not a colonel. So you just thought you knew your history but you really just know a song. :-)
KevCArico is WAY WRONG to forget that this is fiction, but that's not what you asked.
He is correct concerning your Original Post. You asked if History Books and Biographies are factual and KevCArico proved how they can be if not looked at from your jaded POINT OF VIEW.
I AM SO SORRY to interrupt the little Circle Jerk you have going here. I LOVE HOW YOU KEEP AGREEING WITH YOURSELF.
But regardless of references to The Show, you are very wrong since you did not ask that question.
take a look at your own question and you will see how YOU ARE BEING A JACKASS.
BTW, this fictional show sucks and YOU are the TROLL hoping to get attention..
No, the OP is not "way wrong." He is correct that history varies from different perspectives. Its been suggested that if you go back and read letters and news paper accounts you can find "the truth." Fact is that those sources were written by people who likely had one agenda or another. A loyalist newspaper would denounce the Destruction of the Tea whereas a Patriot's account would herald it as a heroic gesture. History is therefore subjective, not black and white as the complainers are suggesting.
shareDUDE, chillax, It's FICTION!
shareWow, Dude. Time for someone's meds?
Talk about being prejudiced and close-minded. But you are right. Nothing in history is true.
Not one bit of it. You don't even exist, actually.
Rogillio,
There is truth in what you have written. That is why you cannot read just one book or one biography if you want to study or write about history. For example, I recently wrote a paper about the assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and serendipitous events that occurred before and after the assasination. In a nutshell, my thesis was, Gavrilo Princip bought a sandwich which triggered events that eventually led to the internet.
The paper was 113 pages, including bibliography and maps, and I cited 103 different sources. During my research I found many disparate opinions and I finally had to make a choice on which citations I would use. In the end the paper was essentially my opinion of what would have happened. You can use deductive reasoning when examining the historical impact of events but not inductive reasoning. Or you could, but the inductive "may" would splinter the narrative logarithmically the further into the past you delve.
Another person, using the identical source material, may have reached different conclusions. When studying an event or series of events a true historian can only accurately say the event occurred. They may pose "if" questions but only rhetorically and that is the measure of a good historian; how well the writer frames his argument and how strongly the facts support it.
By facts I mean the information that is generally accepted as true. For example, we generally accept as true that the American Revolution did take place. Or, we believe the Civil War was won by the North.
So, even if you were able to interview eye witnesses each would tell you a slighty different story. You must make a choice regarding what you believe and accept certain events as factual.
Je
(edited: corrected the spelling of Gavrilo Princip's name)
Exactly
shareYou make a compelling case.
200 years from now people will read about a Ferguson cop killing a man.....or the OJ Simpson trial and there will be VASTLY different accounts of what happened. There is not consensus now......nor will there be consensus 200 years from now.
Rogillio,
That is not the only issue. We have no way of conceiving what possible mental paradigm people 200 years from now will have.
For example, in another thread there was a discussion regarding the political status of colonists. It is hard for people today, many generations removed, to comprehend what it was like to be a subject of King George. How can we, today, understand the state of mind of people 200 years removed from our experience. Or how will people 200 years from now understand our collective experience.
The answer, of course, is to write about our experiences and be as truthful and circumspect as possible. Understanding of course that regardless of what we write or film or record future people will be filtering our ponderings though their filters.
Je
Very good points!
shareWhat you say is, of course, true. But I haven't read anyone complain that one account was favored over the other. The complaint is that events are shown that have no basis in any historical records and that characters, particularly Sam Adams, are nothing like the real people. It's called the History Channel not the Historical Fiction Channel. The complaint isn't about different versions of history; it's about writers creating new versions.
shareIt's called the History Channel not the Historical Fiction Channel. The complaint isn't about different versions of history; it's about writers creating new versions.
Right? It really wasn't that difficult to suss out. Husband, a huge history buff, history major, fanatic consumer of all scholarly material written about essentially every war, writer and lecturer, saw the promos and said, "nope, not for me." He laughed that all that was missing was Sam Adams' Harley, and that was that for him.
I, the moderately interested in such things plebeian in the household, watched it and enjoyed it for what it was (and I must say, have since gone on to look at more serious accounts of the American Revolution, due to my curiosity being piqued by the series. Glad there's a lot of material on our bookshelves to delve into). Everyone walked away happy.
Sounds like you have very sensible attitudes in your household. If the people who are complaining know as much as they claim, why did they watch it in the first place? I personally have better things to do than watch television that is going to make me mad.
shareAnyone still complaining about it qualifies as a whiner
I guess people complaining about inaccurate news stories are just whiners, too, as long as they've been lying to us for a while? People who don't complain are sheeple.
History is news that happened in the past. If Sons of Liberty was billed as historical fiction, no one would have a problem with it. It's on a channel called the History Channel. If you saw a piece on the Science Channel that said the Earth was 6000 years old, would you consider that appropriate?
If you don't like to read people complaining, you have the option of not reading or responding to it, and yet you do. Stop whining about it.
It WAS billed as historical fiction. THAT is why you and the rest are considered whiners.
shareIMDB says that on their page. I didn't see it on the ads or the show's intro, so "billed" is incorrect. And you're still whining.
shareIf you didn't see it, you must be blind and deaf. It was billed as historical fiction on the history channel site and at least every other commercial break as it aired. I'm not the one whining. Just trying to explain to someone who isn't bright enough to understand the facts. But you seem hopeless and I won't spend any more time trying to educate your intellectually inferior mind.
shareI see you, too, write fiction. And you're still whining.
That corpse you planted last year in your garden,
Has it begun to sprout? Will it bloom this year?
SONS OF LIBERTY is a dramatic interpretation of events that sparked a revolution. It is historical fiction, not a documentary. The goal of our miniseries is to capture the spirit of the time, convey the personalities of the main characters, and focus on real events that have shaped our past. For historical information about the Sons of Liberty and the dawning of the American Revolution, please read the Historian’s View section on history.com/sons.
If you don't like to read people complaining, you have the option of not reading or responding to it, and yet you do. Stop whining about it.
Yeah, but they have Paul Revere yelling "The British are coming" a known inaccuracy. This doesn't fit anyones agenda, it's just a sloppy repeating of a historic inaccuracy because the great unwashed would be too confused.
Even Sleepy Hollow, a supernatural show, gets this one right and comments why "The British are coming" is wrong. I think the lines are "It was not the British are coming, it was the Regulars are coming. After all we were British. That would be very confusing sir!"
They changed that line in the actual show. It's incorrect in the promos, but not the broadcast.
shareOh yeah so that of course means it's just fine to bullsh!t here...
share