TURИ

Interested in side wagers -- either this is going to kick ass, or it's going to blow. I'm optimistic after seeing the promos, as it appears to focus on the war instead of lovey dovey bullshit. It also shows the proper British flag for the era.

One last thing -- fuck Banastre Tarleton. That is all.

S.

I'd give better than even it will be good. At least I hope so. Thanks for cluing me in, Sag.

Nathan Hale is Connecticut's state hero and he was a spy. Not part of this spy ring but still a spy.

Color me hopeful as well. I plan to be watching the two hour premiere tonight.

Is this a TV show?

Yes, it's running on AMC here in the states. It's about spies in Long Island during the American Revolution, spies for each side and those working both. It has a couple of solid guys for its technical consultants so it has the potential to really shed some light on the history.

This assumes that it doesn't get all kissy kissy, or car-chasey which is a concern. The Headless Horseman show that premiered last Fall had him using an AR-15 in the first episode, so I'm reserving judgement until I've seen a few episodes. But I'm cautiously optimistic given the previews. It appears that they are aiming at keeping it thoroughly in the era.

S.

Did they really refer to patriots as "Insurgents" with the very first word of this series?

Why yes, yes they did.

I sometimes refer to the left wing sucker punch thrown by Hollywood and they wasted no time here. I have never heard that word used in regards to the American Revolution until last night but I have heard it used a million times regarding Iraq and Afghanistan.

Because you see the difference between a terrorist and freedom fighter is only one of perspective. Or so we must believe. Islamic terrorists and American revolutionaries are really morally equivalent.

The next 40 minutes I watched were as dull as dishwater too.

The Revolution generally fits into the "Counter-Insurgency" category when studied by people in uniform. I think you're attaching more meaning to the word than it deserves, likely due to its prior Hollywood treatment, especially if network news is considered part of Hollywood. This pilot drew pretty clear lines regarding who the bad guys were (talk like Andy) and who the good guys were (talk like normal people) so I think you may have gotten your nose out of joint from the first 30 seconds and not taken what followed to heart.

I watched to the end and I'll be watching next week. They laid out a ton of storyline in 90 minutes and I can't imagine they intend to keep up that pace. I will be interested to see if they stay on the war or move more into soap opera material.

For years I've said that this would be a fascinating time to set a soap opera in. I wouldn't be interested in it but it's fertile ground for human drama for that sort of audience. I'm more interested in the political intrigue and the fancy uniforms. Let's face it, the English in their reds go toe-to-toe with the Nazis in their blacks.

S.

Insurgent-

"A person who revolts against civil authority or an established government."

First Known Use: 1765

From the perspective of a loyalist, the term fits perfectly. I think the show did a good job of setting up the series, and giving a better take on what it must have been like for those who lived in areas split between people loyal to the crown and those who supported the rebellion. If anything they were a bit heavy handed on making the British seem like "the bad guys" but I think given the context of having to take the main character, who comes from a loyalist family, join up with the revolutionaries in the first episode it worked well enough.

Drawing a conclusion that the show put forth that American revolutionaries == Islamic militants is a stretch so big I would have only thought it possible from a Fox news morning show. Or Stephen Colbert.

Look, the choice of word is no accident. Of all the possible terms that could have been used they chose that one specifically.

I'm not arguing that it was an accurate use of the term. So I really don't need the c/p dictionary definition.

I'm saying it's a word that I have never seen used in reference to the Revolution. Has it been? Perhaps. But not in any popular sense.

It has been used 15 times a day in news reports of the Middle East to describe the Islamic fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan. (And yes by "Hollywood" I mean all of left leaning media). When I hear "insurgent" that it what I think of and to a lesser extent the anti-American guerrillas of Central and South America.

The inference therefore that all "insurgents" are both heroes and villains depending on your point of view is not a stretch.

That I was slapped with that in the first second of this series is annoying.

If that's too Fox News for you, then turn up the volume on your MSNBC feed and ignore it.

In total agreement with Sag on the Redcoats. Screw them Lobsterbacks.

No one English really gives a shit. Colonial stuff is very passé. Aristocrats fighting other aristocrats. Big fucking deal. Every time I'm in the USA someone tries to wind me up about this, thinking I'll be hugely offended, but really I just don't care, like everyone else English I know.

Love to see something set in 1930s Berlin involving the interplay between the criminal police and the party guys. That would be good TV.

repoman wrote: Look, the choice of word is no accident. Of all the possible terms that could have been used they chose that one specifically.[/i]

Well, unfortunately for you, and every other audience, we have know way of knowing exactly whoever wrote that line was thinking at the time.

So, let me follow your logic. You complain about the use of the term insurgent, because you fear some left-wing perspective inherent in its use, particularly concerning the American Revolutionary War because, I assume from your disturbance, because the American revolution was in the right. When it was pointed out to you that it was, in fact, not anachronistic. So, basically your entire point is moot and fallacious. The term has a modern valence associated with uprisings in occupied Iraq, and therefore, it cannot be used to describe any other uprising, justified or not? Is it so important that Islamic terrorism and insurgency be especially evil that even language associated with it cannot be used elsewhere?

Here's the uncomfortable truth. To the British in the 13th colonies, the American rebels were insurgents. To the Americans (and allies) in Iraq, those resisting the post-Saddam rule were/are insurgents. Just or unjust, this doesn't change the meaning of the word "insurgent" or forbid its use outside of the context of Iraq.

Well I'm not going to go too much farther with this because I've said what I wanted to.

However, the word is used to illicit a response. Now you can stick your fingers and humm as loud as you want and pretend that is not the case. That's up to you.

The use of the word may not technically but anachronistic but it sure the hell is unusual if not singular. I would challenge you to find any single use of the word in reference to the Revolution in anything other than a very academic military text if even then.

The modern connotation elicited by that word is directly tied to the fighting in the Middle East.

And where in the FUCK did I say it can't or shouldn't be used? Don't put words in my mouth. You don't like, don't agree with, or don't want to admit that my point has some validity. So what? Don't try to widen the argument by pretending I said that it can't be used. I was making comments based on my reaction to it's use in this context.

repoman wrote:
The use of the word may not technically but anachronistic but it sure the hell is unusual if not singular. I would challenge you to find any single use of the word in reference to the Revolution in anything other than a very academic military text if even then.

But it's not. A quick search on Google brings up a pretty good selection of hits.

I didn't get the feeling that it was being used to elicit the response that you claim. I still feel that it's use was very appropriate in the context of the time and events being depicted.

If you don't feel that insurgents was the best word to use, what would you recommend? I'm not trying to hammer you, I'm just genuinely curious. Your post has been the only thing I've read that took issue with the show on this point.

repoman wrote: However, the word is used to illicit a response. Now you can stick your fingers and humm as loud as you want and pretend that is not the case. That's up to you.

...

I was making comments based on my reaction to it's use in this context.

So, first you claim to know the exact reason why the word was used. Good for you. This is generally referred to as the authorial intention fallacy, hence my complete disagreement with your diatribe.

I didn't see the show, nor do I plan to.

What is interesting is how you've begun frothing at the mouth at the very use of a single word. It's appearance obviously prompted discomfort, particularly your discomfort at any point of comparison between insurgency in the Middle East and in the American Revolutionary War. Then the paranoid assumption that this is some reflection of the vast conspiracy of the liberal media.

It's fascinating how such a - rather unremarkable, to see the reviews - show has touched on so sensitive of a political nerve in so innocuous a fashion. If art should be provocative, I guess this show has succeeded gloriously.

Count Orlok wrote:

repoman wrote: Here's the uncomfortable truth. To the British in the 13 colonies, the American rebels were insurgents.

Even more uncomfortably, the vast majority of English troops in the war were American born. There was exactly one Soldier at the Battle of the Cowpens that was British born -- Banastre Tarleton. His entire force was North American born. What shall we call those American red coats? Loyalists? Is that too positive?

British military history is full of counter-insurgency. India, Africa, Ireland . . . their institutional knowledge in the subject is second to none. Now, you read about India and the insurgents there are commonly considered freedom fighters by Americans. Ireland is more of a mixed bag. The Boers are universally called insurgents and generally considered troublemakers. Negative? A tough call. I think you were looking for a fight on this one and I think it soured you on the show. Your choice of course. It's a free country.

S.