TURИ

I thought the show was pretty good, if not fantastic, and an interesting subject. I will keep watching, but at this point only because it's between Sherlock, House of Cards, Walking Dead, etc.

I enjoyed it. Really loved the intro, and also was enthralled by the scene with the British Ranger bayonetting corpses, as the camera started from up in the sky, showing the sea of red and bodies. Gripping stuff.

I'm not in love, however, with any of the actors chosen. That was the one negative for me. Need to now watch the second episode.

Sagrilarus wrote: Yes, it's running on AMC here in the states. It's about spies in Long Island during the American Revolution...had him using an AR-15 in the first episode....they are aiming at keeping it thoroughly in the era.

S.

You lost me. AR-15's in the American Revolutionary War?


As an aside, let me give you a little insight into the whole freedom fighter / revolutionary / insurgent / terrorist thing.

I used to work as a salesperson for a sales agency that sold capital equipment, manufacturing chemicals and supples, et c. Most of my customers were for the military. For every "transparent armor" or "bomb robot" project I worked on, I worked on 10 "Spectre avionics", "drone electronics", "nuclear weapon fuse" or "big fucking cannon" project. My kid asked me about what was on a train that passed by our house, and I knew it was the same track that went through the Raytheon plant that makes the B1B block system, and probably the same one that travels through the Crane NWS site in Indiana. So, I told her the truth, that lots of things, from grain to missiles, and from food to great big guns goes through. She asked me how I knew, and I told her. She asked why I help make guns and missiles, since they kill people. I said that they only kill the bad guys. She asked who the bad guys are. I really didn't have a good answer. I quit a few months later and took a position in the recycling industry...even took a pay cut.

The fact is that there are very few true "bad guys" anymore - it's all relative. Terrorists are bad guys. Anyone who blows up civilians for political reasons is a "bad guy", if there ever was one. But many of what our politicians call "bad guys" used to be our allies. We supplied the Taliban (before they were the Taliban) with weapons. Osama used to be a CIA contact against the Russkies.

So, when it's no longer simple to tell "the bad guys" from the "good guys", the terms become irrelevant. One side sees freedom fighters, the other sees insurgents. If the government is illegitimate, sure, it's easier, but who is the one that decides if it's illegitimate? Certainly not outsiders. Shit, to half the people in the US and probably 70% of the rest of the world, Americans are the "bad guys". Is a guy who blows up a Federal Building (I hate to say it, but it's a valid military target) a terrorist, insurgent, or freedom fighting revolutionary? These questions are simply too hard for my feeble mind to surround, and thus I refrain from labeling anyone except the terrorists who blow up people who don't kneel and face east thrice daily.

So, no more being part of the M.O.D. squad for me, because I'm not wise enough to know the good from the bad, and every time I hear about a drone strike on an HVT that had "acceptable collateral damage" I wonder if I sold them the solder or pick-and-place equipment that made the drone, or the radio, or the computer, that blew up some kids because they happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Sagrilarus wrote: What shall we call those American red coats?

Patriots.

Schweig! wrote:

Sagrilarus wrote: What shall we call those American red coats?

Patriots.

Shut up, Hessian.

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.

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

I can say that throughout undergrad and graduate studies, I saw it used with regularity, especially in primary documents.

Insurgent is a pretty common term far outside of the Middle East and people fighting there.

But I'm also a pinko traitor who doesn't believe in absolute morality, so I also think that how individuals and governments are classified is 100% relative. So who knows.

Language changes all of the time in any case. The English language is not a static language where the meaning of words remains the same for all time. Just look at gay and queer, words co opted by a social liberation movement that now, in general, mean something quite different from their original meanings.

Language is a living evolving structure, often socially defined. Traitor, insurgent, freedom fighter all have meanings dependent on the context. Words are never in isolation of context.

Well that's my take on the topic as an anarchic syndicalist.

Frankly, "insurgent" sounds like one of those meaning-neutral words that newscasters try to use to avoid putting moral judgment into their coverage. Recently Illegal Immigrants became Undocumented Immigrants. In my opinion the more a phrase is used the less independent meaning it carries, but I think Insurgent isn't terribly damning in any particular direction.

S.

SuperflyTNT wrote:

You lost me. AR-15's in the American Revolutionary War?

I'm betting that Sag's talking about Sleepy Hollow. The Headless Horseman is running around with an AR-15, waving a sword around, and short one head. I liked the show, though. It ain't True Detective, but I liked it.

Sagrilarus wrote:

Schweig! wrote:

Sagrilarus wrote: What shall we call those American red coats?

Patriots.

Shut up, Hessian.

If the royalists had won, then today, they would be the patriots, rebels would be terrorists, and Hessians would not have a bad reputation.

Wait no, the French actually did help you guys in your little revolution and you absolutely hate the French today for whatever reason. I'd rather be a Hessian then.

Mexico helped us more than the French in many ways, and yet we treat Mexicans like second-class citizens in many localities, and their entry into our "meliting pot of freedom" is looked upon with disgust and disdain.

SuperflyTNT wrote: Mexico helped us more than the French in many ways, and yet we treat Mexicans like second-class citizens in many localities, and their entry into our "meliting pot of freedom" is looked upon with disgust and disdain.

They would pour so many spices into that pot that no American could eat from it any more!

Joking aside, Mexico was part of Spain back then and Spain helped the revolution on about the same level as France.

Yep.

The French offered direct expertise in the form of seasoned officers. The Compte du Rochambeau took over the American army to bust Yorktown. He and Washington rode through Annapolis about three mile from here, on what's now called General's Highway. That help plus their Naval assistance was huge. Not completely out the the goodness of their heart mind you, but huge.

The Dutch offered money and still own a major chunk of U.S. bonds from rolloing over that investment.

The Hessians have a good reputation here as fine combatants who got paid by the other side. They captured Charleston when British troops couldn't. Again, they brought expertise.

S.

I was always under the impression that Hessians were despised as especially cruel, course, and money grubbing (being mercenaries). I could be wrong. Been a long time since I read a history of the Revolution but that's what I remember.

Anyway, saw the second episode and I liked it better than the first. The guy playing the Ranger Major Roberts (?) is doing a fine job. I like villains that aren't complete dupes and that have a believable motivation. And are menacing...and he is menacing.

I also like how the captured British dude was really strong during the interrogation. Not giving up and mocking his captors. Good stuff.

OH! And notice how the "N" in Turn is written in the Cyrillic style....

Coincidence?