Over the past several years PBS has aired several programs by Ken and Rick Burns, I for one have found these to be seriously flawed. Take BASEBALL and THE WEST for example. With NEW YORK , this has happened again. I will not try and summarize the criticisms, beginning with the NEW YORK TIMES review of November, however, I feel as professional historians we should speak out forcefully on what has happened. Perhaps a letter writing campaign to PBS might be the answer. I do not want to appear as someone against free speech, however, PBS can do a better job in sponsoring programs by these producer/directors to address the criticisms from the profession. John T. Reilly Cindy Robins wrote: > I was gearing up to respond as well. I was quite disappointed, as I'd > mentioned > earlier. David Voorhees quite accurately sums up my feelings about it. One > other thing > I wil mention is that someone had mentioned that the non-historians liked it > better and > viewed it for the sake of learning/entertainment/etc. What bothers me about > that is > that they walk away with a fairly skewed view. I'm quite proud of being of > Dutch extraction and > I really felt they were shortchanged in the documentary. I actually stopped > > watching it, I think by the third day. > > Cindy Robinson > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Voorhees [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 5:22 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: NYC Documentary > > The first episode of Ric's Burns New York unfortunately set the tone for > the rest of the series. His stereotypical characterization of the Dutch > was offensive at best, and downright crude and ignorant. Had the same > things been said about any other people, he would be facing a serious law > suit. Indeed, the entire series pandered to a stereotyping of all New > Yorkers (though not always so negatively) throughout the city's history > into neat little packages, depending on today's popular political > correctness. New Yorkers of all groups and classes have from the very > beginning been an immensely complex people that defy easy catagorization. > The first two-hundred years of the city's history was crammed into two > hours and showed an almost absolute ignorance of the period and the > scholarship on it. Popular, and incorrect myths, such as Lord Cornbury's > cross-dressing, were presented as fact. Particularly insulting was the use > of visual caricatures from Washington Irving's satiric works as if they > were historical representations of Dutch New Amsterdam. Although Mr. Burns > thesis seemed to be that New York City was the great democratic testing > ground (though evidence is that class differences have always been huge in > the city, and that the descendants of the city's 17th-century Anglo-Dutch > oligarchy continue to exert a powerful influence today), virtually nothing > positive seemed to have occurred in New York City with the exception of an > insatiable "greed." Yet, the very legal foundations for the freedoms we > enjoy in America today were often first fought in New York City. There was > no mention of the battles between Stuyvesant and the Lutherans, Jews, and > Quakers in their appeals for religious toleration, which the minority > religions won precisely because of the Dutch constitution and not because > of the "greed" of the West India Company; the Leisler Rebellion was glossed > over and the show's assessment of it as an uprising against the English > rather than as a part of England's Glorious Revolution was totally > incorrect and its impact on the city's development should have been futher > explored; there was no mention of the John Peter Zenger trial, which > established freedom of the press. And one could go on and on. Indeed, > many of the institutions which continue to shape New York today, such as > New York Hospital, Columbia University, etc., had their formation in this > period, yet were barely touched at all. Moreover, no colonial city has a > greater amount of surviving contemporary visual materials from which to > draw, which Mr. Burns seemed particularly ignorant of. His use of the 1730 > Carthwian view of the city with an American flag pasted on it to represent > the city after the Revolution is but one silly example. > > One can appreciate that only so much can be covered in brief program space, > and that selectivity in putting together the presentation is always going > to offend someone who would like their particular interest receive fuller > coverage. But to mislead the public with stereotypes is a more serious > problem that this program suffered from.