John Adams

[gigantes]

anybody else catch this miniseries on HBO?

it's about the first fifty years of united states history as told from the perspective of the lawyer and future president, john adams. the lead is played by paul giamatti, with david morse, tom wilkinson, laura linney and rufus sewell playing other famous figures from the time.

http://www.hbo.com/films/johnadams/index.html

after viewing the second episode, this series reminded me of something that i had completely forgotten- that the rest of the world admires the united states not just because it's "the united states" or has hollywood and the music business, but because it's the first country among equals. meaning it was the first country whose leaders took the unheard-of step of forming their own government and building it along the lines of reason and rationality. these people risked their lives, their families, their property and their legacy in doing so, and wound up firing the shot that remade the world.

i think sometimes in the states we forget that this is the core of why the world respects and admires us to the extent that they still do.

some people seem to think that the world should just sort of automatically admire us, that we can do no wrong, that god (or whoever) will fix whatever mistakes we make, but the series reminded me that those delegates in philadelphia used common sense and reason to make their decision and that god had nothing to do with it. meaning that as a nation we can stray at any time from our position 'at the top' if we stop being reasonable, smart and just.

sorry for the speech, but i couldn't help but make this connection.

[boozehound]

good points and a great mini-series. Without the liberal ideals of the founding fathers, the world would be a much different place today, especially in regards to personal rights to property, educational opportunities, economic opportunities, etc.

[ikoiko]

i think it's a pretty good series, since i am interested in learning more about this part of americas history. but i could have done without the scenes between giamatti and the wife. that part just doesn't interest me.

[Dresta]

anybody else catch this miniseries on HBO?

it's about the first fifty years of united states history as told from the perspective of the lawyer and future president, john adams. the lead is played by paul giamatti, with david morse, tom wilkinson, laura linney and rufus sewell playing other famous figures from the time.

http://www.hbo.com/films/johnadams/index.html

after viewing the second episode, this series reminded me of something that i had completely forgotten- that the rest of the world admires the united states not just because it's "the united states" or has hollywood and the music business, but because it's the first country among equals. meaning it was the first country whose leaders took the unheard-of step of forming their own government and building it along the lines of reason and rationality. these people risked their lives, their families, their property and their legacy in doing so, and wound up firing the shot that remade the world.

i think sometimes in the states we forget that this is the core of why the world respects and admires us to the extent that they still do.

some people seem to think that the world should just sort of automatically admire us, that we can do no wrong, that god (or whoever) will fix whatever mistakes we make, but the series reminded me that those delegates in philadelphia used common sense and reason to make their decision and that god had nothing to do with it. meaning that as a nation we can stray at any time from our position 'at the top' if we stop being reasonable, smart and just.

sorry for the speech, but i couldn't help but make this connection.

I just watched the first episode of this for the second time, and have no idea how you came to this conclusion. The specific argument used to justify rebellion is that there are some "natural" rights anterior to that of government, rights which are guaranteed by "our creator," (the exact words used) and which no government has a right to take away. The show also demonstrate that the extremes of both sides were unreasonable, and as extremes tend to do, forced more sensible people like John Adams to take sides (Sam Adams and John Hancock come across as demagogues and rabble-rousers, the Crown as unreasonable). New England was the home of puritanism also, and religious differences were very important in creating the mutual antagonism between the hardline protestants of this part of the country and the Anglican Church.

Watch the speech by Giamatti at the end of episode 1: the allusion is express and unequivocal. There is nothing rational about thinking this considering all rights are technically a product of time, place, and circumstance (when looked at "rationally"). The show is very explicit: the English King had intruded on what these Americans regarded as their god-given rights, that is, the chartered rights of Englishmen, and that is what justified their insurrection, despite it legally being a matter of treason. You should watch it again.

[StephHamann]

.

sorry for the speech, but i couldn't help but make this connection.

[gigantes]

geez dresta, way to exhume ancient history!

well, hmm... what can i contribute at this point? i notice that my particular thoughts on the series were specifically based on episode two, while you begin by saying you just re-watched episode and 'can't understand what i'm talking about.' seems like an odd way to begin a debate, but w/e.

overall i don't really disagree with most of your points, yet i don't necessarily see a conflict between those points and my original thoughts. i don't think the idea that the FF would dress up their rhetoric by saying "god given rights" takes away from their main motivations and inspirations from locke, rousseau, etc. i don't see a bunch of religious wackos in NE interfering with the overall goals of the founders, such as tolerance and egalitarianism.

if you recall, i recently made a thread discussing the idea that the founding of the USA may in fact have been a major mistake. also, i seem to recall that the english crown was not necessarily unreasonable in expecting compensation from the colonies for the cost of the french and indian war, specifically. just goes to show you, there's arguments on all sides, and i still tend to think our breakaway from the crown and high ideals for all men are the original reason the world's peoples admired the USA so much...

[NumberSix]

geez dresta, way to exhume ancient history!

well, hmm... what can i contribute at this point? i notice that my particular thoughts on the series were specifically based on episode two, while you begin by saying you just re-watched episode and 'can't understand what i'm talking about.' seems like an odd way to begin a debate, but w/e.

overall i don't really disagree with most of your points, yet i don't necessarily see a conflict between those points and my original thoughts. i don't think the idea that the FF would dress up their rhetoric by saying "god given rights" takes away from their main motivations and inspirations from locke, rousseau, etc. i don't see a bunch of religious wackos in NE interfering with the overall goals of the founders, such as tolerance and egalitarianism.

if you recall, i recently made a thread discussing the idea that the founding of the USA may in fact have been a major mistake. also, i seem to recall that the english crown was not necessarily unreasonable in expecting compensation from the colonies for the cost of the french and indian war, specifically. just goes to show you, there's arguments on all sides, and i still tend to think our breakaway from the crown and high ideals for all men are the original reason the world's peoples admired the USA so much...

Read the constitution. It's not about what the people CAN do. It's about what the governments, both state and federal, can and can't do. It doesn't say these are rights people SHOULD have. It recognizes that these are natural rights that come from a higher power than government and such rights are beyond the reach of government.

[StephHamann]

OP should read Two Treatises of Government from Locke

[gigantes]

Read the constitution. It's not about what the people CAN do. It's about what the governments, both state and federal, can and can't do. It doesn't say these are rights people SHOULD have. It recognizes that these are natural rights that come from a higher power than government and such rights are beyond the reach of government.

yeah, and...?

most of the FF's probably believed in god, and the populace certainly did, so it was it was mos def sound strategy on their part.

do you reckon it was in their best interests to cast themselves as the upstarts in the affair? of course not-- the whole idea was to act as the aggrieved party.