Jonathan Zimmerman asks: What’s So Bad About Ken Burns?

Historians in the News
tags: Jonathan Zimmerman, Vietnam War, PBS, Ken Burns, Lynn Novick



Jonathan Zimmerman teaches education and history at the University of Pennsylvania. He is the author, with Emily Robertson, ofThe Case for Contention: Teaching Controversial Issues in American Schools(University of Chicago Press, 2017).


Historians aren’t very happy with Ken Burns. He’s a simplifier; we complicate. He makes myths; we bust them. And he celebrates the nation, while we critique it.

That’s the party line, anyway, among my fellow academics. And while I agree with some of their attacks on Burns’s recently concluded TV series about the Vietnam War, there’s something else at work here.

It’s called sour grapes. Put simply, Burns has managed to engage a huge public audience. And that makes him suspect among members of our guild, who write almost entirely for each other.

We pretend we don’t envy his fame and fortune, but of course we do. We’re like high-school kids who don’t get asked to the prom, then say they never wanted to go in the first place.

That’s the only way to understand the dismissive, vituperative tone of our profession’s reaction to Burns’s series. Several scholars praised Burns for including multiple voices — especially Vietnamese ones — in his interviews. But most historians in the blogosphere took him to task for distorting the conflict, especially with regard to his quest for a shared national narrative that can bind Americans together. ...

Read entire article at The Chronicle of Higher Education

comments powered by Disqus