The West - Die Eroberung des Westens

I had looked forward to the series as coming from a master of the documentary form. After all, Burns set in motion several documentary devices that have been widely copied since, such as first-person voice-over narration and having the narrator sign off each spoken part with his or her name. The Civil War series was truly an achievement.

This thing, however--

It amounts to a chapters-long indictment of Europeans that verges on racism. It emerges after a while that the only good whites are dead whites. It's true that there was much brutality in white settlement of the west, and that horrible crimes were committed, usually unthinkingly, and many of them by whites. But is there really nothing more to the story than white-folks-bad/red-folks good? With a little effort, Ken Burns might have found, oh, I don't know, at least one good white person. Or, rather, one good white person who wasn't immediately tarred and feathered by his redneck fellows.

It's as if you were to tell the story of World War II and focus on nothing but the fact that the American armed forces were rigidly segregated at the time. Oh, wait, that one's probably Ken Burns' next.

This documentary mini-series does a decent job of covering such a huge, complex subject in 9 episodes (about 10 hours of time). I like that appropriate focus and time given to American Indians, who played such a crucial role in the story, and to other groups like Latinos, blacks, and Chinese immigrants who played vital roles, as well.

(I'm also offended by a number of reviewers who complain that too much screen time is given to Indians and minorities. These same reviewers complain that whites aren't credited enough for their courage and virtues in subduing the "wild west" and "civilizing" the Indians. The irony is that these reviewers are the very sort of racist people who caused so much trouble and misery while the real history was being played out!)

On the whole, I do recommend watching this mini-series.

The series elides over mentions of how the Apache and Sioux displaced the Cheyenne and other tribes, and how the Spaniards and then Mexicans took over the SouthWest, but none of these are disparaged or spoken of as having "stolen" the land from anyone. Only the evil white Americans "stole" the land and displaced rightful owners.

Also, much is made of the extermination of Indians. I used to live in Tuscarawas County, Ohio. There were once Tuscarawas Indians, but they were extinct, because the Iroquois had warred upon them and broken up their villages and driven every last one they didn't kill or enslave into the forests where they died of exposure and hunger. This was repeated throughout the continent and the history of the American Indian. They should surely have understood genocide and extermination of enemies, because that is how they regularly waged war.

Every piece of land in the world, from the Americas, to Europe, to Asia, Africa and Australia was conquered and displaced the previous residents, most many, many times over, throughout history. But the only time conquering territory and displacing and killing the previous inhabitants is evil: when the Americans did it. The Americans, the most selfless, righteous and generous people history has ever known, who gave their blood and treasure to rescue the Cubans, Phillipinos, all of Europe twice, the Far East, Iraq and Afghanistan and Korea and Vietnam and unlike all the superpowers of the past, the USA never took territory nor enslaved people other than in the contiguous N. American continent (Hawaii joined voluntarily).

Ken Burns did an admirable job of not taking sides in The Civil War, notwithstanding Barbara Fields constant scolding ("I grow impatient with people who say Lincoln couldn't have freed the slaves faster because of the times"). The PC left got to him about that, I'm sure, and everything he's done since then, Jazz, Baseball, The War, The West has focused on minorities, white man's injustice, women's rights and over-played these groups actual contribution, notwithstanding 99% of the history, like the Civil War, was driven by the people who actually did the actions that made history. Like it or not, Howard Zinn fans, those were white Americans.

Quit distorting history with liberal guilt. The conquest of North America was the greatest thing that ever happened in the history of the world, and had the most beneficial results for the entire world, blacks, Indians and all other minorities included. They are all better off in the United States, imperfect as it was and is, than anywhere else in the world.

In response to the ludicrous comments of the aforegoing jingoistic 'type': The writers of The West must have had more than a few facets of their mammoth piece right in order to elicit such a typically moronic right-wing-styled response in its appeal to nationalistic myth, grand-narrative delusion and brazen stereotype positing. Not to mention - the ironic circumstance of contending that 'we' as the Caucasiatic race are being slighted in some way, in order to showcase the romanticised moanings of other races. The series does no such thing... in fact it habitually (and necessarily) DOES turn about much of the essential Ameri-myths of Frontier and Manifest Destiny (and sundry others), which have been/are so central to your much lauded and generalised "natioanl consciousness". The series, in the main, does NOT disparage these! - nor is there essentially any need to - since they're not altogether bad, of course.

So, once you're finished waving your flag about, and - somewhat ironically - prattling on about the reductive "black and white", perhaps consider that an expansive narrative like The West MUST contain motifs and themes... it cannot present a comprehensive or 'complete' history (there is no such thing)... and is perfectly entitled to present perspectives that don't accord with someone-or-other's ideal of a 'balanced' account. 'Balance' is NO objective reality, and shouldn't be thought of as 'existing' as a universal truth awaiting insertion into subjectively-conceived narratives - not even quality history docos such as The West. As far as I could ascertain, The West does NOT prefigure or predetermine to depict white settlement as inherently disastrous in any event. It is celebrated as much or as far its nasty consequences are elucidated. And, the perspectives of native peoples OUGHT factor decisively anyway - it is no narrative flaw of The West to present this perspective... especially when facts abound to corroborate.

Also, to the aforementioned 'patriot' who seems fond of collectivising white America concerning all that overstated 'swell'stuff like "fighting communism" and "winning two World Wars" ... you're okay with maintaining the 'we' for all the OTHER stuff too, right?

The West does present narrative, production and continuity issues for me also, but I'm loathe to be allied to a K.P. such as thee.

This documentary was incredibly well done and well researched. A lot of very sensitive white people on IMDB have been leaving reviews about how this documentary is a "revisionist" history and framed as all white men are evil. As a guy who teaches history I find it fascinating that so many people believe whatever version of history they learned growing should be the only version that future generations learn about. History is something that can be interpreted differently by different generations. Just because you were raised with some baby boomer propaganda filled version of American history does not mean that any other version is "revisionist" or "PC."