A review of Ken Burns’ “Benjamin Franklin” (PBS)

Long before I watched this film, I watched another PBS documentary about Benjamin Franklin. This earlier film was by Muffie Meyer, who has made a few documentaries for PBS. These included “Alexander Hamilton,” “Dolley Madison,” and “Liberty! The American Revolution.” The Muffie Meyer film is an excellent film in its own right, which is some three hours long. This Ken Burns film is even longer: some four hours long. But I had low expectations going into this Ken Burns film. That is, Ken Burns’ “Thomas Jefferson” was practically a hatchet job on Mr. Jefferson. Specifically, among other things, it had great emphasis on the hypocrisy of Jefferson’s slaveholding. I actually agree with a number of their criticisms of Jefferson, but still found their take on him to be excessively negative. Thus, I was expecting to get the same kind of treatment in this later film about Benjamin Franklin. And, at first, it seemed like this film would be in the same vein as Ken Burns’ “Thomas Jefferson.” But, surprisingly, I ended up liking “Benjamin Franklin” a lot. I may like Ken Burns’ “Benjamin Franklin” even better than Muffie Meyer’s “Benjamin Franklin.”

A review of Ken Burns’ “Muhammad Ali” (PBS)

He was born Cassius Clay, but joined the Nation of Islam and then changed his name

He was one of the greatest athletes of the twentieth century. He was born “Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr.,” but would later consider that to be his “slave name.” The name had been given to him by his parents, both of whom were African Americans. But the world would instead remember him by another name: “Muhammad Ali,” an Arabic name meaning “blessed of God.” This second name came partially from the seventh-century founder of Islam – that is, after the Prophet Muhammad. But, much closer to home, he had joined the “Nation of Islam” in the United States. This was a Black Muslim group, known for its radical politics. He would be good friends with Malcolm X, but would later abandon his friendship with Malcolm, when Malcolm X later broke with the Nation of Islam. Malcolm disapproved of the more “personal” conduct of Elijah Muhammad, the founder of the American “Nation of Islam.” That is, Elijah Muhammad had impregnated seven of his secretaries. Angry members of the Nation of Islam later murdered Malcolm X as revenge in 1965. Only later in his life would Muhammad Ali express some regret over his earlier break with the controversial Malcolm X.

Cassius Clay and his trainer, 1960

Millard Fillmore: A moderate on slavery who pleased no one

In July 1850, President Zachary Taylor mysteriously died while still in office. Most seem to believe that his stomach disease was from natural causes, but there has long been a theory that it came from arsenic poisoning instead. This actually led to Mr. Taylor’s long-dead body being exhumed in 1991, nearly a century and a half after his death. The medical examiner failed to find any evidence of arsenic poisoning. Thus, most seem to believe that his stomach disease was indeed from natural causes, and that Millard Fillmore had no involvement in his death. There were open sewers in Washington, D.C. at that time, which caused an epidemic in the city. Nine of Mr. Taylor’s Cabinet officials were sick with the same disease as President Taylor. Thus, most believe that the poor sanitation led to Taylor’s food and drink being contaminated. As vice president, Millard Fillmore succeeded Zachary Taylor upon his death. And, fortunately for Mr. Fillmore, relatively few Americans suspected him of any involvement in his predecessor’s death. But Millard Fillmore would fail to be elected president in his own right, and only served for two-and-a-half years. Specifically, Fillmore finished out the term that he had inherited from Zachary Taylor. Fillmore would destroy the Whig political party, by enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850.

Millard Fillmore

Andrew Johnson: The man who botched Reconstruction

An anecdote about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth …

On April 14th, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. Lincoln was at the height of his glory, having just won the American Civil War. Lincoln had just begun his second term a month earlier. But John Wilkes Booth had robbed Lincoln of the opportunity to finish out his second term. As a Confederate sympathizer, Booth hated Lincoln’s support for African American civil rights, and thus shot the President of the United States at Ford’s Theatre. Booth had also wanted to kill the vice president, a relative unknown named Andrew Johnson. Booth then believed that the vice president would be at Kirkwood House while he (Booth) was surreptitiously shooting the president at Ford’s Theatre. Thus, Booth had assigned George Atzerodt to kill Johnson at Kirkwood House. As Wikipedia puts it, “Atzerodt was to go to Johnson's room at 10:15 pm and shoot him.[footnote]  On April 14, Atzerodt rented the room directly above Johnson's; the next day, he arrived there at the appointed time and, carrying a gun and knife, went to the bar downstairs, where he asked the bartender about Johnson's character and behavior. He eventually became drunk and wandered off through the streets, tossing his knife away at some point. He made his way to the Pennsylvania House Hotel by 2 am, where he obtained a room and went to sleep.[footnotes]” (Source: Their page on the “Assassination of Abraham Lincoln”)

George Atzerodt, the man whom John Wilkes Booth had tasked with killing Andrew Johnson

A review of PBS’s “From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians”

“And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.”

– “The Gospel According to St. John,” Chapter 6, Verse 35 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

The first episode covers the early life of Jesus, acknowledging that he was a real person

I had fairly low expectations going into this film. This film was made by PBS Frontline, a journalistic arm of PBS. Since Will Lyman is the exclusive narrator for PBS Frontline, he was the one chosen to narrate this film. But there actually isn’t much narration, good or bad, to speak of in this film. It’s mostly a discussion among scholars, with the narration used for little more than transitions from one interview clip to the next. They also cut to footage from the Holy Land – which is beautifully photographed here, incidentally. The scholars interviewed here are nice enough people, and manage to avoid being confrontational in their comments. Some of the scholars are Jews or Christians, but most of them are a little skeptical about Christianity – and, in many cases, about “religion” more generally. They paint the Gospel accounts as being a little “contradictory,” relying on some fairly careless readings of the text to do so. They also read too much into certain information, like how Jesus asked to be baptized by John the Baptist. In this example, they interpret this to mean that Jesus was a “follower” of John, and considered the Baptist to be “superior” to Himself. I’m not sure how they managed to read these things into the text, but so goes the argument. It seems to be rather slipshod scholarship, actually, which is unsupported by the text. I’m all right with getting these people on the record, and hearing from them in this film. And, in fairness, some of their arguments are mainstream – although some of them are a little more “creative.” But these people come across as a little too confident in their conclusions. Furthermore, they seem to imply that their opinions are backed by “scholarly consensus,” when this film is actually relying on just a handful of scholars, and giving them great weight.

A review of “Protestant Christianity” (audiobook)

In 1517, Martin Luther wrote the “Ninety-Five Theses,” a written attack on the Catholic Church. Luther may or may not have pinned this document onto the door of All Saints’ Church. Regardless, this is often dated as the beginning of the “Protestant Reformation.” You could argue that there were other proto-Protestant groups before that. However, this audiobook basically begins in the sixteenth century. That is, it begins at the traditional date of the Protestant Reformation in 1517. It then gives a brief overview of some of the major branches of Protestant Christianity. Incidentally, the name “Protestant” comes from past protests against the Catholic Church. Today, relations between Catholics and Protestants tend to be somewhat better than they were in previous centuries. That is, they no longer tend to be violent.

Forgotten battlegrounds of the World Wars: Asia and the Pacific

Warning: This blog post contains some disturbing pictures. One of these, in particular, is very graphic, and may merit special caution.

We are often told that World War II began in Europe, with the 1939 (Nazi) invasion of Poland. And, in truth, there is a good argument to be made for this date. But some would date it earlier, to the Japanese invasion of China in 1937. Some would date it even earlier than that, to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931. You could make an argument for any of these three dates being correct, so I will not attempt to settle this controversy here. But either way, there is much about the war in the East that is unknown to the general public. Whenever and however it became a part of World War II, it is clear that this massive conflict began long before Pearl Harbor. This post will dive into a few of the forgotten aspects of the war in the East, and discuss its roots in local colonization by both Western and local Asian powers.

Vietnamese soldier, 1889 – during the French conquest of Vietnam

Background on prior European (and Japanese) colonization of Asia

For example, the Japanese had colonized Iwo Jima as early as the sixteenth century. And there was actually a corporation from the Netherlands called the “Dutch East India Company.” This private company had invaded Indonesia as early as 1603. But the region later fell under the control of the Netherlands government back in Holland in 1800, creating the province of the “Dutch East Indies.” And the British East India Company had gained control of India, in the 1757 Battle of Plassey. India may be the most populous overseas territory that any empire has ever possessed. In the 1820s, the British Empire later gained control of Malaya, which then included Singapore. The British also fought their first war in Burma in the 1820s, partly to maintain their control of nearby India. The second British war in Burma came in the mid-1850s, with the great “Indian Mutiny” coming in 1857. Control over India then passed from the British East India Company to the British Crown, thus beginning the era of the “British Raj” in India. In 1879, the Empire of Japan soon annexed the Ryukyu Islands, which included the island of Okinawa. In 1885, there was a third British war in Burma, which saw Burma annexed into British India – with sporadic resistance there for decades afterward. In 1886, though, the British returned to separating the provinces of Burma and India from each other. Back in 1858, the French had begun their infamous conquest of what is today Vietnam. In 1887, the process was completed, and the province of “French Indochina” was born – although resistance there continued into the twentieth century, long after World War II. In 1893, the French also had a brief war with Siam (later renamed to Thailand). At the end of that war, Siam thus ceded some land to French Indochina. The Japanese fought their first war with China in the 1890s (with an early invasion of Manchuria), today called the “First Sino-Japanese War.” This was partly about who would control nearby Korea. At the end of the war, the Japanese then began to rule the island of Taiwan in 1895. The Russians then invaded Manchuria in 1900. There was an alliance between Britain and Japan starting in 1902. But the Japanese soon attacked the nearby Russians, and beat them in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. The Japanese then made Korea into a Japanese protectorate in 1905, and formally started to colonize Korea for themselves in 1910. Japanese rule of Korea and Taiwan would then remain unchallenged for decades afterward.

Japanese infantry during the occupation of Seoul – Korea, 1904