A crew shoots footage for The American Revolution at Ganondagan State Historic Site, a recreated 17th century Seneca ...

New Ken Burns series features Indigenous nations’ role in American Revolution

November 24, 2025

Ken Burns’s PBS series centres Indigenous nations’ diplomatic and economic roles in the American Revolution, with Haudenosaunee influence, Cherokee input and Indigenous consultants.

Key Points

Series spotlights economic and diplomatic roles of Indigenous nations
Haudenosaunee Confederacy cited as Franklin’s model for colonial union
Twelve-hour PBS series took almost a decade to produce
Indigenous consultants advised throughout the production process
Rick Hill cautious but stresses Haudenosaunee story’s centrality
Cherokee advisor praises early inclusion, warns progress remains slow
Burns calls Native stories essential to understanding the Revolution

Ken Burns’s new PBS series, The American Revolution, brings Indigenous nations to the centre of a story long told through a narrow lens, foregrounding their economic and diplomatic roles and the consequences of the conflict for their communities.

Traditional ceremonies and cultural practices — Ken Burns (standing) with The American Revolution co-directors David P. Schmidt and Sarah Botstein. Burns says his documentaries have a 50:1 shooting ratio (50 minutes of footage per one minute of finished film) so a good deal of footage is left out from the final version. (Joe DePlasco)

The series and its scope

Community leaders and cultural preservation efforts — Behind the scenes of filming reenactments for The American Revolution at Washington Crossing. The series was filmed at over 150 locations. (Jonah Velasco)

The American Revolution, airing this week on PBS, is a 12-hour examination of the upheaval that reshaped North America. The series was almost a decade in the making and depicts a bloody clash for Indigenous land that involved more than two dozen nations, European as well as Native American. From the outset, Burns and his team sought to frame the Revolution as a struggle not only among British, French and American interests, but also among sovereign Indigenous nations whose territorial, political and economic stakes were profound and often determinative.

Indigenous art and traditional craftsmanship — Rick Hill is a Tuscarora historian who does regular workshops on decolonization. (Submitted by Rick Hill)

Episode 1 highlights the Haudenosaunee Confederacy as an early exemplar of unity that influenced colonial thought. The episode points to Benjamin Franklin’s interest in the confederacy two decades before the Revolution, noting how he looked to the union among the Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Tuscarora, Oneida and Mohawk nations as a model for co-operation among the 13 British colonies in North America. Burns underscores that colonial leaders declined to cede autonomy to one another, missing, in his view, a clear lesson Indigenous leaders had “figured out centuries ago,” a theme the series revisits as alliances and loyalties shift amid war.

Cultural education and language preservation — Jen Loren is a Cherokee documentary filmmaker. She said she was ‘humbled’ to work with Ken Burns and his team on The American Revolution. (Submitted by Jen Loren)

Indigenous consultants worked on the project, helping to shape the narrative and deepen its focus on sovereign nationhood, diplomacy and the economic stakes of territory and trade. Burns’s aim to position those perspectives as integral to the story is consistent with the series’ broad scope and its emphasis on context that is often absent from textbooks.

Indigenous nations as economic and diplomatic actors

A core proposition of the series is that Indigenous nations acted as full diplomatic and economic participants in the Revolutionary era. The production depicts Indigenous leaders and diplomats as peers to the French, British and American counterparts with whom they negotiated, fought, traded and made strategic decisions. That framing challenges accounts that reduce Indigenous peoples to bystanders or monolithic groups, and it aligns with the consultants’ advice to treat each nation’s sovereignty and interests as distinct and enduring.

Among the figures highlighted is Kanien’kehá:ka leader Joseph Brant (Thayendanegea). The documentary features many portraits of Brant, a choice Burns frames as indicative of Brant’s historical stature and command. This visual emphasis sits alongside the series’ scrutiny of revolutionary rhetoric, including Thomas Jefferson’s language in the Declaration of Independence. Burns draws attention to Jefferson’s reference to “merciless Indian savages.” He contrasts that rhetoric with a broader aspiration in the same document, noting that reconciling the two requires sustained work.

Burns also comments on George Washington’s frequent use of the term “empire,” a characterisation that, he notes, presumes control over territories inhabited by sovereign peoples. By surfacing these elements, the series prompts viewers to consider how founding-era language, policy and ambition intersected with the existing political geography mapped by Indigenous nations.

Burns’s approach and personal grounding

Burns, known for The Civil War, The Vietnam War and The National Parks: America’s Best Idea, presents his approach as rooted in an insistence on accuracy and completeness. He describes that impulse as being “in his DNA,” recalling how his grandparents, while seeking Civil War artefacts on their honeymoon, actually found Native American arrowheads, flints and other tools. As a child, he had a map of the United States above his bed marking the territories of 300 Indigenous nations, a constant reminder of original inhabitants and their complex political boundaries.

That early exposure informs his insistence that this material not be sidelined in classrooms. Burns argues that Indigenous histories are not optional or peripheral to the American story but foundational to it. As he puts it, engaging Native American stories is not complicated; in his words, it is “it’s just required.” He urges audiences to view the series in full before forming conclusions, emphasising that only a comprehensive account can do justice to the intertwined histories of Indigenous nations and settler powers.

Haudenosaunee Confederacy: inspiration and fracture

The Haudenosaunee Confederacy features prominently as both inspiration and cautionary tale. The series recounts the confederacy’s long-standing model of governance and mutual obligation that Franklin observed, and it follows how the Revolutionary War ultimately tore that union apart. The narrative traces divided loyalties as nations within the confederacy faced escalating pressure to choose sides amid British, American and other Indigenous interests.

Tuscarora historian Rick Hill stresses the centrality of this story, calling the Haudenosaunee experience “the critical part of the whole thing” when it comes to understanding the American Revolution. Hill recalls that he learned little about Indigenous history until he attended university in the 1970s, where he connected with other Indigenous scholars and began speaking with elders from his community about the confederacy’s real history. He describes initial anger at the absence of Indigenous representation in historical accounts, an anger that evolved into a commitment to teach the living history of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, which he notes is still functioning today.

Hill characterises the Revolutionary period as one of betrayal and divided loyalties that brought Haudenosaunee nations to the brink, “to the one point where we’re spilling each other’s blood, despite what the Peacemaker said.” He says the confederacy overcame that rupture and that its culture and law helped its people survive, underscoring continuity and resilience despite wartime fracture. With debates over how history is taught resurfacing, Hill argues that the series arrives at a critical moment, citing renewed attempts to “whitewash history.”

Reception and expectations

Hill says he is hesitant to watch large-budget historical programming, telling CBC Indigenous he is “tired of being disappointed” by multimillion-dollar productions. Burns, for his part, asks viewers to defer judgement until they have seen the whole series, a request consistent with his argument that a single episode cannot capture the breadth of the material. The production’s length and the involvement of Indigenous consultants are presented as safeguards against simplification or homogenisation of hundreds of distinct nations and experiences.

That caution is echoed and expanded by Cherokee perspectives included in the documentary’s consultation process, which call for both inclusion and specificity. The intent, according to those involved, is to depict sovereign Indigenous nations with the same diplomatic precision and historical depth afforded to European powers and the emergent United States.

Cherokee Nation perspectives and consultation

Jen Loren, senior director of Cherokee Film from the Cherokee Nation in Tulsa, Okla., served as a consultant on the documentary. She notes that Indigenous advisors were engaged early and that Burns’s production avoided lumping all Native Americans together. Instead, she says, The American Revolution presents leaders and diplomats of sovereign Native nations in parallel with the French, British and Americans.

The series also acknowledges the historical displacements that followed. Loren points out that the Cherokee Nation was displaced from their homelands in the southeastern United States, the Carolinas and Georgia in the 1700s by the Indian Removal Act. She adds that it is the largest tribe in the United States, with 460,000 plus citizens. While Loren welcomes the inclusion, she cautions that progress is uneven, stating that while it is positive to be included, the broader landscape of film and media still has “a long ways to go.”

Featured figures and contested language

The documentary’s treatment of Joseph Brant anchors a broader discussion about how Indigenous leaders were perceived and represented in their own time. By foregrounding Brant’s numerous historical portraits, Burns aims to counter pejorative depictions and emphasise his authority. This choice interacts directly with the language of the Revolutionary era, including Jefferson’s description of “merciless Indian savages.” Burns invites viewers to weigh such rhetoric against Jefferson’s earlier affirmation that “all men are created equal,” and to consider the work necessary to reconcile those ideas with the lived realities and sovereignty of Indigenous nations.

Meanwhile, the observation that Washington frequently used the term “empire” offers another lens on the aims of revolutionary leaders. The series suggests that such language cannot be separated from the presence of existing nations that already governed those lands, and that any narrative of American expansion must contend with the sovereignty and agency of the people already there.

Educational implications and public understanding

Burns remarks that it is striking how little of this history is routinely taught in schools. The series is positioned as a corrective to that omission, encouraging educators and audiences to situate the Revolution within a continental network of Indigenous polities, alliances and rivalries. The production’s emphasis on economic and diplomatic roles is designed to move beyond reductive battle maps and dates, foregrounding decision-making by Indigenous leaders whose choices and alliances significantly shaped outcomes.

By integrating those perspectives throughout rather than confining them to sidebars, the series seeks to normalise an approach that treats Indigenous nations as central historical actors. That, in turn, supports the consultants’ calls for more nuanced depictions across media and education and aligns with Hill’s and Loren’s emphasis on sustained, respectful inclusion.

Timeline and release

The American Revolution airs this week on PBS. The series’ development spanned almost a decade, during which Burns and his team assembled archival materials, expert interviews and consultation with Indigenous advisors. Episode 1’s focus on the Haudenosaunee Confederacy’s influence on Franklin frames the early colonial period, while subsequent instalments chart the widening conflict, the competition for Indigenous land, and the diplomatic manoeuvring among more than two dozen European and Native American nations.

Burns ties his long-standing interest in accuracy to formative experiences, including his grandparents’ discovery of Native American artefacts and the map above his childhood bed showing the territories of 300 Indigenous nations. Those touchstones, he suggests, reinforced a basic editorial principle: narratives of the American past must include the peoples who shaped it, from the outset and in their own words. As he summarises his approach, engaging Native American stories is not optional; it is “it’s just required.”

Source: CBC News (https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/ken-burns-american-revolution-9.6988028?cmp=rss), used for discovery. Facts verified, wording original.

What is Ken Burns’s The American Revolution about?

The American Revolution is a 12-hour PBS documentary series that examines the Revolutionary era as a struggle over Indigenous land involving more than two dozen nations, European as well as Native American. It highlights the economic and diplomatic roles of sovereign Indigenous nations, emphasising that they were central actors rather than background figures. Episode 1 foregrounds the Haudenosaunee Confederacy as an inspiration for colonial union two decades before the Revolution. Indigenous consultants worked on the production, which was almost a decade in the making, and the series presents leaders and diplomats from Indigenous nations alongside French, British and American figures.

How does the series portray the Haudenosaunee Confederacy?

The series presents the Haudenosaunee Confederacy as both a model of political union and a casualty of wartime division. It highlights Benjamin Franklin’s early interest in the confederacy’s structure as an example for the 13 colonies, 20 years before the Revolution. At the same time, it traces how the Revolutionary War fractured the confederacy, pushing nations into opposing alliances and even internal conflict. Tuscarora historian Rick Hill underscores that the Haudenosaunee story is critical to understanding the era, describing betrayal and divided loyalties, and emphasising that Haudenosaunee culture and law ultimately helped communities to endure and the confederacy to continue functioning.

Which Indigenous figures and ideas does the documentary highlight?

The series features Kanien’kehá:ka leader Joseph Brant (Thayendanegea), using his many portraits to signal historical stature and command. It scrutinises Revolutionary-era rhetoric, drawing attention to Thomas Jefferson’s reference to “merciless Indian savages” in the Declaration of Independence and juxtaposing it with ideals such as “all men are created equal.” It also notes George Washington’s frequent use of the term “empire,” inviting viewers to consider how language shaped policy toward territories already governed by sovereign Indigenous nations. These choices situate Indigenous leaders and political systems as core to the period’s diplomatic and military dynamics.

What roles did Indigenous consultants play in the production?

Indigenous consultants were engaged to ensure the series accurately represented the sovereignty, diversity and agency of Native nations. Their input helped the production avoid treating Indigenous peoples as a single, homogenous group. Consultant Jen Loren, senior director of Cherokee Film from the Cherokee Nation in Tulsa, Okla., said advisors were brought in early and that the series depicts leaders and diplomats from sovereign Native nations on the same footing as the French, British and Americans. This approach underpins the documentary’s focus on economic and diplomatic roles and aligns with broader calls for specificity and respect in storytelling.

What are Rick Hill’s views on the series and historical representation?

Tuscarora historian Rick Hill says the Haudenosaunee story is vital to understanding the American Revolution. He recounts learning little about Indigenous history until university in the 1970s, when he began speaking with elders to uncover the confederacy’s real history. He notes the Revolutionary War’s divisions, including instances of Haudenosaunee communities spilling each other’s blood, and credits culture and law with helping them survive. While cautious about large-budget productions, saying he is “tired of being disappointed,” Hill views the series as timely amid renewed attempts to “whitewash history,” and he hopes it prompts deeper engagement with Indigenous perspectives.

How does the documentary address education and public understanding?

Ken Burns argues that much of this history is not taught in schools and insists that engaging Native American stories is essential to understanding the Revolution. He frames inclusion as a basic requirement rather than a complication, stating it is “it’s just required.” The series aims to correct omissions by integrating Indigenous economic and diplomatic roles across episodes, rather than treating them as tangential. Burns urges viewers to watch the entire series before judging it, emphasising that a comprehensive view is necessary to appreciate how Indigenous nations shaped revolutionary decisions, alliances and outcomes.

What perspective did Cherokee consultant Jen Loren bring?

Jen Loren, senior director of Cherokee Film from the Cherokee Nation in Tulsa, Okla., consulted on the series and welcomed early inclusion of Indigenous advisors. She says the production does not lump all Native Americans together, instead depicting leaders and diplomats from sovereign Native nations comparable to French, British and American counterparts. Loren notes the Cherokee Nation was displaced from their homelands in the southeastern United States, the Carolinas and Georgia in the 1700s by the Indian Removal Act, and describes it as the largest tribe in the United States with 460,000 plus citizens. She also cautions that broader media inclusion still has a long way to go.

What biographical context does Ken Burns provide about his interest?

Burns links his insistence on accuracy to formative experiences. He recalls that his grandparents, while searching for Civil War artefacts on their honeymoon, found Native American arrowheads, flints and other tools instead, signalling an early connection to Indigenous histories. He also describes a childhood map above his bed showing the territories of 300 Indigenous nations, which kept the presence and sovereignty of original inhabitants at the forefront of his imagination. These memories inform his conviction that Indigenous perspectives belong at the centre of America’s story and his belief that comprehensive storytelling is necessary to convey the Revolution’s complexity.

Sources: Original Source. Used for discovery; facts verified, wording original.

admin