allanhunter.net Blog

This morning’s Globe, page F1, brought Alex Beam’s column in which he shares some of my questions about this mini-series. In fact he says “I don’t trust the work any more” and calls McCullough’s work “feel-good history”.

Beam directs us to Boston1775.blogspot.com as a source for uncovering specific historical inaccuracies in the series, inaccuracies that can be shown because the TV show goes directly against what Adams recorded in his own diaries and in his autobiography. Such as, he wasn’t there in the immediate aftermath of the Boston massacre - the episode that starts the TV series…. and so on….

There are a distressing number of these.

It’s the old struggle between conveying the spirit of history, making it ’sexy’ enough to interest us, and conveying the actuality. Like the boundaries of memoir and the novel, recently (and the whole new genre of fabricated-memoir) we find ourselves on a slippery slope. This is lofty territory, so here’s an example: I can appreciate uncle Arthur’s hilarious rendition of what happened at Ben’s wedding. I was there. And I enjoy Arthur’s account far more than I enjoy my vaguely pleasant memory of what happened, aided with photos, first person accounts from those I trust, and so on. But Arthur’s fictional version makes me laugh! Fortunately I know the difference between fact and fun. Most people watching ‘John Adams’ will not be in that situation. Many will accept as true what is merely ‘feel-good’.

What’s wrong with that, one may say? No one’s hurt by it.

So here’s a not very feel-good ‘fact’ for you about the American revolution from an Englishman. It may shock your preconceptions.

Britain finally surrendered to ‘the Colonies’ because they found the war too expensive. India was much more profitable, after all, and one could actually rely on native troops there, for the most part. Little was required in the way of occupying troops. King George got out of America because it didn’t pay and it cost too many lives too far from home. He foresaw decades of internecine strife ahead. He was right. The US blundered towards the hell of a civil war, although it took a while to get there, but the seeds of that war were already thriving in 1775. One might say the British got out just in time. They may have been sad to go, but politically it was a very wise choice. America didn’t ‘win’ the Revolutionary War, it simply set the stage for an even more ghastly time of bloodshed between 1860 and 1865. The British used that as an opportunity to get very wealthy selling weapons to the North (mostly) and were very happy about that role.

This is a point of view that will certainly have some people I know re-thinking their ‘history’.

Somehow this all reminds me of Iraq. Expensive war, far away, huge expense, civil unrest certain for decades ahead. But that’s another issue.

So here’s a plea to the makers of multi-million dollar mini-series events that are wildly popular and significantly inaccurate: Don’t do it. Don’t give us this sugar-coated confection, this cup-of-tea-by-the-fire on a cozy Sunday afternoon pap. By doing things as you are you are perverting history for your own gain, rendering us all dumber. That is not a kind, nor a loving, thing to do.