The sound here is beautiful. It is a good historical video in its own right, not only for the material it covers, but also how it presents information, in how it overlooks or twists the truth in specific ways that was common in historic pieces/viewpoints, but as modern viewers, we must be aware of and make note of. First, note the description of Dunbar's "livelihood," which was built on the backs of slaves, is typical of how things were described back then. That is, the crime of slavery is mentioned, but only as "in passing." Second, the the story of Harvey and the experts' outright lies of "slaves didn't always try to run away; some really just wanted some breathing room." So, some takeaways: 1. It's a good historical piece. 2. It ALSO exemplifies "methodology of the time" in how it downplays humanitarian crimes. 3. It ALSO exemplifies the "feel better" Caucasian lies that are/were told. All of these make this more of a historical piece than it probably intended to be, so if watching, be sure to do so w these elements in mind. View it for the history, but also as an example of how humanitarian crimes, for example, were downplayed or rewritten. Bravo for PBS for not hiding this, though context would've been appreciated.
Jeannie Whayne-The conclusion of the TWO types of runaway slaves is from a FLAWED perspective and the idea of a European purchasing land owned by Indians from another European is ludicrous!
Very good film.
Never have heard of these two men, never. interesting.
🔭🦘 very interesting
The sound here is beautiful. It is a good historical video in its own right, not only for the material it covers, but also how it presents information, in how it overlooks or twists the truth in specific ways that was common in historic pieces/viewpoints, but as modern viewers, we must be aware of and make note of.
First, note the description of Dunbar's "livelihood," which was built on the backs of slaves, is typical of how things were described back then. That is, the crime of slavery is mentioned, but only as "in passing."
Second, the the story of Harvey and the experts' outright lies of "slaves didn't always try to run away; some really just wanted some breathing room."
So, some takeaways:
1. It's a good historical piece.
2. It ALSO exemplifies "methodology of the time" in how it downplays humanitarian crimes.
3. It ALSO exemplifies the "feel better" Caucasian lies that are/were told.
All of these make this more of a historical piece than it probably intended to be, so if watching, be sure to do so w these elements in mind. View it for the history, but also as an example of how humanitarian crimes, for example, were downplayed or rewritten. Bravo for PBS for not hiding this, though context would've been appreciated.
Jeannie Whayne-The conclusion of the TWO types of runaway slaves is from a FLAWED perspective and the idea of a European purchasing land owned by Indians from another European is ludicrous!
I would of loved to see the hot springs area before the white man destroyed it .
Psst..would have vs would of...
The French, the Spanish, the indigenous and Black! Thank goodness for the White Savior! 🙏🏼