No moves made about George Washington?

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,171
US
My point is he apparently changed alliances because of profit and not for the sake of "freedom" which we are all told in school.
His motives can really only be known to him, but Washington and many of the founding fathers were the wealthy elite of the continent, the 1% of their time. Washington and his family were directed involved in land speculation including with the Ohio Company. Washington, Franklin and a few others made fortunes off land sales after the war was over. Check out this article on the Ohio Company, you can see how the Washingtons benefitted at first from land sales from the crown, then after the French and Indian War, King George prevented further sales of land with the Proclamation of 1763.
Ohio Company - Ohio History Central

and this is an example of why I think people don't make an accurate movie about his entire life, people easily take offense concerning "The Father of our Country" being shown in anything but a shining light.
Exactly, thank you.
Exactly? Are you taking back your original comments?
 
Feb 2019
859
Pennsylvania, US
But this discussion is because a poster stated they could not make a movie about Washington because of his foibles, with which I have disagreed. So, I say make it.
The original poster mentioned that it would be hard to make an accurate film about Washington without it being offensive to some people and gave some reasons why (slave ownership, blunders early in his career, etc). I don't think it was ever said a film shouldn't or couldn't be made.

However, to imply something that is not factual based on one's opinion or desired view of reality is revisionism. Tell me what is historical about that? As far as the myth, what great person hasn't been?
I don't know if any of this is truly revisionism... these elements (slavery, early life failures, financial motivations, etc) are all pretty openly addressed about when you visit somewhere like Mount Vernon.


Let's have Peter Jackson do the "Washington Movie", so the original, factual story line will end up as three films, all something like this:

 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,171
US
Every Founder had some financial stake in the new republic. That is a given since in almost every organized society in every place around the world throughout history the movers and shakers typically run things. So nothing new under the Sun here. But to assume that these men would benefit under the flag of a new nation rather than staying part of the most powerful entity in the world at the time is very speculative. And to posit that this was Washington's main motivation is wrong. Many people respect Washington, along with the other Founders because they created the most opportunistic and best place for quality of life for the masses that has likely ever existed. There is not a need to cast aspersions about one's loyalty to that cause without proof, is there? I am somewhat tired of the this guy was really bad routine. I have to assume there is some underlying agenda if one can't prove it. If you look at the definition for historical revisionism that I posted the article states "Much more controversial is the reversal of moral findings, in which what had been considered to be positive forces are depicted as being negative.' " This is a history forum. I am just trying to keep it real.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Abraham95

Zip

Jan 2018
566
Comancheria
We come here to speculate and shoot the bull. Many things in history can't be proven and if we could only talk about those things that can be proven we'd have little to talk about.

I'm not a head nodder and a defender of hierarchies and social and historical conformity. And I'm cynical as Hell about people and their motives--people have a way of thinking that what's in their interest is in the interest of all and twist their notions of reality to fit their interests.

Revisionism is part of the constant churning of historical knowledge and those who don't like some of the new notions and attitudes take offense at them. Tough luck. Currently the War of the Rebellion (American Civil War) is seeing a lot of revisionism and many people are no longer swallowing the notions that the rebels were men fighting for an honorable cause and worthy of commenoration. Reactionaries take offense at this and complain about "PC", as though being politically correct is a bad thing. It's my observation that many who complain about PC are complaining because their ideas and actions no longer meet with widespread approval. Often when a group that gives another group a raw deal can no longer do so they then think they're getting a raw deal. Funny, eh?
 

Iraq Bruin

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
5,197
DC
Every Founder had some financial stake in the new republic. That is a given since in almost every organized society in every place around the world throughout history the movers and shakers typically run things. So nothing new under the Sun here. But to assume that these men would benefit under the flag of a new nation rather than staying part of the most powerful entity in the world at the time is very speculative. And to posit that this was Washington's main motivation is wrong. Many people respect Washington, along with the other Founders because they created the most opportunistic and best place for quality of life for the masses that has likely ever existed. There is not a need to cast aspersions about one's loyalty to that cause without proof, is there? I am somewhat tired of the this guy was really bad routine. I have to assume there is some underlying agenda if one can't prove it. If you look at the definition for historical revisionism that I posted the article states "Much more controversial is the reversal of moral findings, in which what had been considered to be positive forces are depicted as being negative.' " This is a history forum. I am just trying to keep it real.
I think you are reading too much into that post to be honest, to address the thread's intent, the focus on "events" and "tendencies" would be too scrutinized for the work to be successful, even facts can be overemphasized and under-emphasized for various reasons (feasibility, drama, politics, ..etc) .

For such project to be biographical, it would almost certainly need to be a long series of roughly 25-35 hours, it could be done if there is money to make out of it but even then there will be a general upset (too many negatives/positives shown, too few negatives/positives shown, ..etc)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rodger

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,171
US
We come here to speculate and shoot the bull. Many things in history can't be proven and if we could only talk about those things that can be proven we'd have little to talk about.

I'm not a head nodder and a defender of hierarchies and social and historical conformity. And I'm cynical as Hell about people and their motives--people have a way of thinking that what's in their interest is in the interest of all and twist their notions of reality to fit their interests.

Revisionism is part of the constant churning of historical knowledge and those who don't like some of the new notions and attitudes take offense at them. Tough luck. Currently the War of the Rebellion (American Civil War) is seeing a lot of revisionism and many people are no longer swallowing the notions that the rebels were men fighting for an honorable cause and worthy of commenoration. Reactionaries take offense at this and complain about "PC", as though being politically correct is a bad thing. It's my observation that many who complain about PC are complaining because their ideas and actions no longer meet with widespread approval. Often when a group that gives another group a raw deal can no longer do so they then think they're getting a raw deal. Funny, eh?
You use some rather loaded terms in your post zippy. If you can't discuss my posts with some evidence than tough luck when it comes to your post being believed. You say recently there has been a good deal of revisionism and skepticism on the issue? Why don't you post some links to these articles so we all can read and discuss them? Opinions are welcome but this is a history website and since I have been here, if a poster would like something more than one's opinion to support a position, they ask for sources. That's all I am asking for.
 
Last edited:

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,397
Caribbean
The original poster mentioned that it would be hard to make an accurate film about Washington without it being offensive to some people and gave some reasons why (slave ownership, blunders early in his career, etc). I don't think it was ever said a film shouldn't or couldn't be made.
I wrote that it would likely offend most people, not some people, but never gave a reason.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,397
Caribbean
Every Founder had some financial stake in the new republic
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."