I'm looking at this series from an European perspective. My local streaming provider picked up this series, and I started watching it without really knowing what I was getting into. It took a while to understand.
This series is really a collection of 10-15 academics reviewing major points of the expansion of the United States. The director of the series has made it a point to go in depth on three different perspectives: The perspective of the colonizers of the US, the point of view of the indigenous population, and the view of the enslaved Africans. Each point of view is given equal weight. The brutality of the creation of the US is heavily underscored. For some viewers, this might be uncomfortable viewing. But with such a breadth of historians, the facts presented appear to be very solid.
The director of the series has done a good job of organizing the subject matter, so it's easy to follow. The narration between the interview clips is well done in summarizing and connecting. So far so good.
The main weakness in this series is the dramatization that is used to illustrate the dialogue. This weakness becomes obvious rather quickly. The dramatizations are of a very general nature, and not specific to the events that are being talked about. And soon, these scenes are recycled, so you get the same shots of people walking through western towns, indians on horseback, and African Americans working in the fields. In fact, the series would be better without the use of these scenes at all.
There really is a disconnect between the thoughtful presentation of the material in terms of organizing and selecting and connecting the historians' account, and the lackluster use of "reenactments".
It is often said that history is written by the victors. This series really does a good job of rectifying that, and as such is worthwhile watching, even with its flaws. Some of the professors we get to see are better storytellers than others. Kevin Waite of Durham University stood out to me with his sharp and focused comments.
