I really enjoyed this series and have watched it repeatedly. The acting is superb and the sets and costumes are amazing! However, the lack of attention to John Adams' (or the other Founding Fathers') faith was disappointing. John Adams was deeply religious and most of what he believed came from the Bible. I don't understand why they would sacrifice great workmanship to remove this element from their retelling.
shareYou know, we've had this argument many times on this board, and I don't see much purpose in bringing it up again.
John Adams was a Unitarian. He was certainly religious in a sense but not really comparable to conventional conceptions of Christianity.
"We're bowling for sinners today!"
Its not an amazing show. Im sure it gives yanks nice warm fuzzy feelings as its designed to appeal to the July 4th and thanksgiving mentality. But seriously its a load of tosh. It makes me laugh how there is a black face in nearly every other scene, as if that's atall realistic. And I like its made out that free slaves and indians all supported the independence movement. I like the way slavery is blamed on the British. I like the way taxes are talked about as if they were extremely high or something when in reality they were extremely low.
Im willing to bet that none of the "founding fathers" were even remotely similar to the way they are portrayed in this. They were self proclaimed British imperialists that owned slaves, were rich and bourgeois. They just got a little to greedy and saw their chance. Thats all. And by the way, if the British had placed much value to the American Colonies we would of succeeded. Keep kidding yourself that you chased us off with pitchforks and you got freedom, and you help the world and your not an imperial power.
Do yourselves a favour and watch or read something from Niall Ferguson.
It makes me laugh how there is a black face in nearly every other scene, as if that's atall realistic.
I like the way slavery is blamed on the British.
I like the way taxes are talked about as if they were extremely high or something when in reality they were extremely low.
They were self proclaimed British imperialists
that owned slaves,
were rich
They just got a little to greedy and saw their chance. Thats all.
And by the way, if the British had placed much value to the American Colonies we would of succeeded.
Do yourselves a favour and watch or read something from Niall Ferguson.
Nice work Hancock..thanks for saving me the trouble....
It is not our abilities that show who we truly are...it is our choices
I just checked through the clown's posting history... on another board he claimed that Gandhi was both wealthy and a former British soldier. Clearly this gent is either a troll or a moron.
"I will treat these paltry interruptions with the attention they deserve."
I still stand by my post (and all of them that is), and yes, a quick wikipedia search for Gandhi also proves im right on that. Yes I can see your quite articulate and probably academically quite well studied on your subjects, but it doesnt mean you are right or that what you have learned is real.
shareThe British imperialists attempted to hold all the colonies as agricultural colonies forever. They did introduce slavery here as a means to raise food to feed their slaves in the Caribbean, just as the French did in Louisiana. I will grant you that it took nearly a hundred years and our Civil War to end the institution, but it is blatant hypocrisy for the rest of Europe to invent race slavery, impose it on America, and then blame Americans for wrestling with it to bring it to an end.
Yes, I know, our institutions were built on the backbone of our experience as Englishmen. But it took a new country and a new way of thinking to rid ourselves of the same superstitious nonsense of hereditary monarchy. Now, you foppish British twits are inflamed that you lost your world dominance. After all, you had a real Civil War. A bunch of frustrated puritans trying to wrestle absolute power away from your duly crowned king as part of a long temper tantrum over religion. We created a nation without a mandatory religion, too.
Within a hundred years, by the time of our same Civil War that we fought over slavery, we became the most powerful industrial nation on earth. Britain was greatly relieved, amazed, but greatly relieved that when we had built the most powerful navy in the world and had the most powerful land army in the world in 1865 that we cut our costs by eliminating them instead of using them to start seizing territory. After all, that was what Europeans, including those little islands of twits in the North Sea had been doing for a thousand years. We bloody upstart Yankees instead sought the path of peace and commerce.
Good luck to you, you pommie *%$^#. Stand by your post. All the raving in the world, including yours, won't change what the Founding Fathers accomplished.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
I just checked through the clown's posting history... on another board he claimed that Gandhi was both wealthy and a former British soldier. Clearly this gent is either a troll or a moron.
Perhaps you should have also mentioned an article I saw in the National Geographic. A small Caribbean island was found with a population that looked african but spoke the Irish language. Apparently they were the descendants of a British Navy brothel that was abandoned in the middle of the 1800s leaving African slaves and Irish women and children who had been sentenced and sent there by the British navy to occupy a brothel for the British navy. They intermarried and ended up with an african looking population that spoke Irish. I can imagine that it was not the only brothel set up by the British navy. Americans may have had slaves and not treated them well, but this is British history too. They set up the slave trade before we were a nation and could make different laws.
shareWay late to the party on this thread I imagine, but after having seen so many irrational rants and retorts throughout so many Message Boards, I just wanted to add to the kudos on a well thought out, and conveyed response in a situation that normally devolves to the worst aspects of "discussion" seen on message boards. Well done.
shareHancock, great and thorough reply to this dope - thank you! BTW, anyone who types or writes "would of" instead of the correct "would've" isn't putting much thought into his or her scribblings.
shareClearly you are a limey. The fact is a small group of American farmers CRUSHED the British army, reputed to be the best army in the world at that time. Great Britain was not just a super power but a world wide empire and they got their asses handed to them by a bunch of peasants. Now the United States of America is the only Mega-Power on the planet. we've saved the miserable wretches of the British Isles on several occasions and as usual they have pissed away those opportunities to become the third world nation that they are today. So quit your whining and learn your place and know that only winners get to write the history books. Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
shareYour post seems just as ignorant as the one that offended you. I wouldn't be so proud of our alleged Mega-Power status, nor would I dismiss the people of the British Isles as "miserable wretches," considering it's our corrupt banking system that has helped destroy much of Europe's economy, as well as our own. Our health care system is considered third-world; our education system wallows at that level, as well. Perhaps you need to learn your place, as well. Lots of people write books purporting to be histories, but few are accurate, since all histories suffer from internal biases. Have you even been in the UK? It's a gorgeous place, full of marvelous people and a proud heritage. At least they honor their history, rather than bulldoze it to build more McMansions and strip malls. FYI: one person's facts are just another person's fabrications.
Put puppy mills out of business: never buy dogs from pet shops!
Clearly you are not in any way proud of your country and that is to be expected from a sniveling liberal. The European financial system has been in the toilet for decades so don't try to blame our more recent failure for that. Really all you did was emphasize my point. With all our problems (caused by the Obama administration and the democratically controlled congress) we are still far beyond the reach of any other country on this planet. If you're so enamored of Europe, by all means MOVE. This country doesn't need any more Whiney pansies, we already have a bunch in the White House.
shareI don't understand people of your political persuasian. Let me get this straight. Are you saying that if a person doesn't think the United States is #1 in everything you're a whiny lib and should move?
shareNot necessarily. I'm referring to the liberal dolts that try to blame every problem in every country in the world today on either the Bush administration specifically or the U.S. in general. Since the United States rose to world prominence during the industrial revolution we have saved Europe and the rest of the world in two world wars. Then we did something that no other conquering nation ever did; we used our own money and resources to rebuild the lands we had conquered and handed them back to the indigenous population and never asked for repayment. So until the rest of the world recognizes this and pays us back including many decades of interest adjusting the principal for today’s inflation they haven't earned the right to whine or complain. Whenever any other country has a natural or man made disaster the first thing they do is come to us with outstretched hands wanting our help, but they sure as hell can't be bothered to give back anything but a lot attitude.
Not necessarily. I'm referring to the liberal dolts that try to blame every problem in every country in the world today on either the Bush administration specifically or the U.S. in general. Since the United States rose to world prominence during the industrial revolution we have saved Europe and the rest of the world in two world wars. Then we did something that no other conquering nation ever did; we used our own money and resources to rebuild the lands we had conquered and handed them back to the indigenous population and never asked for repayment. So until the rest of the world recognizes this and pays us back including many decades of interest adjusting the principal for today’s inflation they haven't earned the right to whine or complain. Whenever any other country has a natural or man made disaster the first thing they do is come to us with outstretched hands wanting our help, but they sure as hell can't be bothered to give back anything but a lot attitude
Nicely put Gill. Kudos!
shareMany good points in there.
Alas, you either like to use phrasing, or truly believe, aspects of the conservative movements ideology that often makes the points made, and beliefs, belittled and minimalized.
How someone can claim to be patriotic and so in love with America, and at the same time make snide comments, use name-calling, and essentially throw the beliefs of nearly half the country (or more at times) under the bus because they don't believe in the same priorities or issues as you do is, and likely always will be, beyond my understanding.
The attacks on liberals (as the easiest example in this case) and the hating of them, their issues, policies and at this time the countries administration being slightly leaning in that direction comes off as so anti-American I just don't know how it is not realized even as conservatives spout such stuff.
And the reverse holds true as there are many extreme liberals that rant likewise about aspects of the conservatives that come off just as badly in the perception of not really understanding and supporting our country, left and right.
I spent eight years listening to talk show hosts demeaning the attacks on the Administration as anti-American and unpatriotic... which has turned into seven years of listening to them supporting the attack on the Administration if not spear heading it, and when they are called out on this being anti-American or unpatriotic, they claim it is a citizen's responsibility to question and challenge the administration. Pot, Kettle, Kettle, Pot.
In closing, again, your points on their own merits, namely those that don't involve the words Bush or liberal, are extremely well made. Stars and Stripes forever!
What a total crock of pooh ! Your notion of the USA and its record in the world is akin to a 6 year old believing that Santa has saved the world.
shareI'm from mainland Europe(not Italy..)but approve of much what OP said.
It's easy to insult & attack his sayings but some scenes could've been less padded with pathos & retoric.
Liked the scenes in France & Holland the most, very faithful, even the Dutch language was heard.
Yes, wiki on the Founding Fathers of the United States offer some more facts,like how many were farmers, bankers, religion & more..
Most of them were merchants & land owners, slave owners (of which 2 freed their slaves).
9 of them weren't even born in the States.(more trivia but still..).
I had a question about the authenticity of the hygiene:
did John Adams have bad teeth or was that general problem by their 40s-50s with the toothbrushes & probably no decent paste??
Also wonder about the smallpox, did Abigail Adams(his wife)& children overcome smallpox by infecting themselves..?
-nothing against limeys,wops or gentile..-
Inoculation for Smallpox was an accepted method for prevention by the late 18th Century. They used active Cowpox virus obtained from infected cows and spread it on an open wound created by a doctor. I don't think they had any idea why it worked, but they had determined that it did work.
shareDude........you just got OWNED!
shareAs if this thread has turned into an Americans vs British argument. It's pathetic.
I'm English and thoroughly enjoyed John Adams. I didn't feel it was anti-British or made to "appeal to the July 4th and Thanksgiving mentality".
These boards really depress me sometimes.
I'm Australian, so I don't have a bias either way ... I've only seen the early episodes so far, but it seems to me that is such sequences as the aftermath of the "Boston Massacre", the scriptwriters went out of their way to be even-handed on the issues. The posts which descend to the level of "nya-nya-nya" nationalist triumphalism only reduce the debate to sub-kindergarten level.
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
As the great-granddaughter of proud British citizens, I'm appalled by your terrible grammar. Your mistakes in usage remind me of my American college students. Perhaps British education is not what it used to be. While I had many issues with this series, I find your objections absurd. In what sense was slavery blamed on the British? Not all founding fathers owned slaves; similarly, not all were wealthy or bourgeois. I agree America has grown terrifyingly imperialistic; unfortunately, many of our ancestors were good teachers. Nevertheless, I find it difficult to put much stock in the words of someone who cannot proofread his own work. I'm surprised you read at all.
Put puppy mills out of business: never buy dogs from pet shops!
Are you quite sure you are "British" bbgunpop? Are you English, Irish, Scottish, or Welsh? Your use of language is rather odd for a British person. Also, Americans say "he is British" whereas persons from the U.K. identify themselves as English, Irish, etc since there are long and very nasty histories to be respected. "Would of"?!? I have never seen a "British" person use "would of" -- "should of" and "would of" -- are American colloquial expressions, misstatements. The proper expression is "should have" or "would have" -- I have a hard time believing you made such a dramatic error given your feelings about the colonies that poor mad George III didn't care about at all...
"Hearts and kidneys are tinker toys! I am talking about the central nervous system!"
Still butthurt after almost 250 years.
"What else do you like? Lazy? Ugly? Horny? I got 'em all."
"You don't look lazy."
Well-said, Hancock! My Unitarian friends are the furthest thing from Bible-thumpers. Many of the founding fathers did not subscribe to the rigid tenets of so many modern fundamentalists who claim to know what the founding fathers thought of religion.
Put puppy mills out of business: never buy dogs from pet shops!
Quotes from John Adams:
* When we say God is a spirit, we know what we mean, as well as we do when we say that the pyramids of Egypt are matter. Let us be content, therefore, to believe him to be a spirit, that is, an essence that we know nothing of, in which originally and necessarily reside all energy, all power, all capacity, all activity, all wisdom, all goodness.
o Letter to Thomas Jefferson (17 January 1820). Often misquoted as "God is an essence that we know nothing of" and attached to a part of his 22 January 1825 letter to Thomas Jefferson.
* Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?
o Letter to Thomas Jefferson (19 May 1821), published in Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams (UNC Press, 1988), p. 573.
* The Europeans are all deeply tainted with prejudices, both ecclesiastical and temporal, which they can never get rid of. They are all infected with episcopal and presbyterian creeds, and confessions of faith. They all believe that great Principle which has produced this boundless universe, Newton’s universe and Herschell’s universe, came down to this little ball, to be spit upon by Jews. And until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.
o Letter to Thomas Jefferson (22 January 1825). The section in bold is often attached to fragments from an earlier letter from Adams to Jefferson (17 January 1820).
Clearly a spiritual man who loathed organized religion.
Getting in way late, obviously, but to say Adams (my great-great-etc. grandfather, by the way) was a Unitarian is a gross oversimplification. He took on several Congregationalist-Unitarian ideas as he got older, but he also retained a belief in Jesus Christ as the unique son of God and savior of the world, and also in the factuality of at least some miracles as related in the Christian Bible.
But if your point is even that Adams was "religious in a sense," that's enough to make the original poster's point valid. The series does underplay the influence of his beliefs about God and religion on his political philosophy and conduct. I'm not saying this might not have been a good call on the part of the filmmakers; you can't show every detail of every aspect of the life of a biopic's subject, and maybe there was some deliberate decision by the filmmakers that there was no point in alienating a significant percentage of the audience by what some would consider an overemphasis on religion. Maybe they thought his belief came through his actual writing and statements as depicted onscreen (which I agree they did, to some extent and perhaps even to a sufficient extent). But by a standard of absolute comprehensive accuracy, it's probably true that the series somewhat underplayed this aspect of his life and thinking.
This is a logical fallacy commonly known as the fallacy of anachronism.
The Unitarianism practiced by Adams is not the same as the Universalist Unitarianism we see today.
Read Adam's writings. They have nothing at all in common with modern Unitarianism and sound much more like something your average Presbyterian would write.
Idk why people hate reposts. People want to talk to other people and have their opinion heard. Just reading peoples thoughts from 2 years ago isnt the same as reading someones thoughts currently and being involved in it. I just dont get why this irks people on message boards so much.
shareI have one complaint as well, and since I've only seen the first disc (two episodes) so far, maybe it gets better. It seems like there was no effort made to make the other founding fathers'charcters real. George Washington is seen as Superman and Jefferson appears to have Asbergers, if not full-blown autism. All students of history know he had a high pitched voice and was a poor orator, but c'mon.!
I'm not that proud of everything I've done, but I'm not that ashamed, either.
I have a bone to pick with the book on the issue of Adams' religion. I don't think Mccullough includes the word "Unitarian" once. He continually says that John Adams was a devout Christian, but without knowing context, and considering that the book is written for modern readers who have an entirely different view of Christianity, that's a highly misleading way of putting it. There's a difference between how Adams and Jefferson observed their Christian faith and how George Washington did. Mccullough's guilty of oversimplification there.
shareActually.... the book does mention his alignment to Unitarian beliefs.
shareFYI, leading autism experts have speculated that Jefferson may well have had Asperger's, or at least significant autistic traits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_figures_sometimes_considered_a utistic
Sorry man but it is simply not true that John Adams or the other founding fathers were very religious. Many of the founding fathers were Deists (believed in Providence or God) but believed little else.
If you are interested in some quotes from them, check out:
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html#washington
Here is a sample:
Thomas Jefferson
“The clergy believe that any power confided in me will be used in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly”
"I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature."
George Washington
“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained
without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national
morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle”
"The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the
Christian Religion."
President James Madison - "A just government has no need for the clergy or the church."
The problem here (and not with your post, in particular) is assuming that only deists/atheists would advocate freedom of religion. Just because a man is a Christian does not mean he is a zealot.
The Founders were varied in terms of their specific beliefs.
Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and Thomas Paine were self-proclaimed Deists.
Thomas Jefferson was a very strange case, practicing a personalized Christianity but not subscribing to an organized Church. (I'm not sure I'd classify him as a Deist per se.)
John Adams was a Unitarian, as already said.
George Washington, John Hancock, John Jay and James Monroe were Episcopalian/Church of England, each practicing to differing degrees (Washington, at least, doesn't seem to have been particularly devout).
Alexander Hamilton went from Presbyterian to agnostic to Episcopalian at various times in his life. Only in the last two-three years of his life did he become outspokenly religious.
Patrick Henry was a devout Catholic.
Samuel Adams was a Congregationalist and apparently sparred with John over religious matters (among other things).
Proclaiming "the Founders were Christians" is blatantly misleading, but then so is the opposite.
However, I think secularists ultimately win this argument. Whatever the Founders's personal religious beliefs, they were certainly students of the Enlightenment and 18th Century libralism, of which freedom of religion was a central tenant. Anyone who claims they intended America to be a "Christian nation" is misinformed.
"Lola, I love you, you selfish bitch!"
I am in the midst of a "John Adams" marathon viewing...LOL! IT is a superb piece of work by HBO and now Academy Award winner Tom Hooper and co. A great piece of Americana done the right way for a change.
While watching this outstanding mini-series I am reminded of what a fascinating country the United States is, how full of potential and great qualities it remains, for all its faults and shortcomings, which ALL nations in this world have had and still have as part of their national character.
I think a great many of us who are not Americans, tend to forget how young a nation it is and what a great deal it has managed to achieve in its short history, achievements which other nations have been either unwilling or unable to do in histories that are many, many years older.
That it is why it is such a shame to see the US tearing itself appart and canibalizing its very soul and essence with all this present pettiness and short-sightedness. A country that has produced such minds as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and my favourite, John Adams, ought to do better than it has in the past few years. It must, for whatever one might think of the United States of America, its presence is still very much needed in this world. I only hope that Americans themselves realize that and stop destroying themselves and the great works their forefathers brought forth.
I think that HBO's "John Adams" should be required viewing in schools and other places, not only across America, but elsewhere, because I think it would open many minds with a clearer eye and better view of America and its birth.
"Today is the tomorrow I was so worried about yesterday"--Anthony Hopkins
Is there any mention of Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings?
If impersonating a Police Officer is an offence, shouldn't actors be imprisoned?
Several references to Sally Hemings. And she appears in the last episode.
--------------------
I love you too but I'm going to mace you in the face!
haha, my one bitch is the fact the people's nostrils were often shown with bits of dry snot in them, that Giamatti's skull always seems on the verge of exploding due to pimples, and that most of the outdoor scenes have a single artificial fly buzzing around the soundtrack constantly.
But other than that, I found the series quite enthralling. I just really wish they hadn't cast Giamatti as JA. Any number of less annoying actors could have done just as well. So okay, two things annoyed me.
***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**
Sort of hilarious. I mostly like Giamatti, but man...the people who hate him (like my wife, for instance) REALLY hate him. Don't know why some people inspire that kind of polarity.
shareThat's nonsense. There is zero truth to what you are saying
shareMost of the founding fathers and the educated (such as Thomas Paine) around this time were deists, much in the same way that Einstein was a deist. They certainly had spiritual beliefs and a strong faith, but we would find it very different from today's religious world and I think many Americans today who view America as some sort of Christian nation would be very shocked at the kind of deistic faith that these men actually had. Rather than a personal god who intervened in and actively cared about the world, their view was more of a natural order of things, a sort of mystical mother nature from whom certain truths were granted, such as liberty.
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." - Hank Bukowski
Huge oversimplification to say that "most" were deists, in any accurate definition of that word (that is, a definition that excludes the idea of personal salvation, the uniqueness of Christ, etc.). Some were, some weren't. "Most," though, were pursuing a brand of religion that the run-of-the-mill fundamentalist today wouldn't be so happy with.
Really, part of the problem is that people have used the word "deist" much too sloppily, to the point where it denotes almost any kind of religious belief in which some kind of God is acknowledged but not along the lines of modern fundamentalism. A lot of these guys believed in a less childish, more metaphysical, more Enlightenment-oriented idea of the Christian faith that was still essentially Christian, just not so blinkered -- and not kneejerk anti-government, paranoid, etc. There was a sort of ethic among educated intellectual Christians that would be completely unfamiliar to those who encourage "Christian" involvement in politics today.
There are still a lot of Christians who practice the faith in much the same way the Founding Fathers did. I was raised in the Episcopal church, and my parents are still active in it. They pretty much fit your description of "educated intellectual Christians", and though conservative in their personal lives don't like politicians trumpeting it and imposing it on other people the way too many do now.
shareIt's Hollywood. In Hollywood, the only time somebody can be shown as a Christian is if he's a criminal, a child molesting monster, a cult leader, or used for comic purposes.
shareWithout getting into an argument about the faith of the fore fathers of this country, I will say that this series was fantastic. Brilliant acting all around. In fact I may make my minions watch it at work.
share