The History Channel's America: The Story of Us. . .Propaganda?

[ANONONE]

So I captured the miniseries on DVR and started watching the first few installments, and I am pretty disappointed. I wonder if the sponsor, the Bank of America produced this with a heavy hand.

It is not only subjective, some of it is downright wrong.

For instance, they jumped right from the first settlers to the "heroic Bostonians that gave the gift of freedom to all of us."

WTF????

They skipped the French and Indian War. They failed to mention that the only taxes levied against the colonists were to pay for the huge debt of protecting them during the French and Indian War. Even still, those taxes were in reality about a third of the tax bill the average Londoner paid. In today's situation, it was one fifth of what our tax bill is.

Then they talk about the Boston Massacre. They portray the people shot as completely innocent martyrs. Huh? The troops were there to put down insurrection that was bloody and violent. The malcontents, including Atticus, were armed with clubs, cobblestones, and farm tools and had drawn first blood by attacking the trroops that were attempting to make them disband and go home--peacefully. The crowd turned on them, and a nervous soldier pulled the trigger.

Then they go on to talk about the innovation of warfare in that true American spirit ingenuity they employed snipers, hid behind rocks and trees, and attacked helpless noncombatants in a deliberate campaign to induce fear in those loyal to the crown. In fact if you read the newspapers and correspondence of that time, you will see description of American behavior described the same way we talk about terrorists.

Talk about revisionist history. . .

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by ANONONE

It is not only subjective, some of it is downright wrong.

reminds me of a few posters on here

[ANONONE]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

reminds me of a few posters on here

Yeah. . .you should probably take that mirror down, or at least cover it with a blanket.

[ElisabethWhispers]

Just watched a little of it tonight and couldn't get into it. Why do you think that it might be "subjective" and propaganda? The reason why I ask is I agree with you but I'm not sure why.

That whole channel, and I'll admit to being a very new television viewer, seems to have programming that leaves me thinking, "Ah, what?".

Again, not sure why. This series it seemed would be interesting and why would the sponsor wish to misrepresent history in a slant?

Guess that would be a question for the ages, though.

Hugs,
Elisabeth

[charlestudor2005]

I know a guy who calls it the WWII Channel. I never watch that channel, so I don't know if that is true or not.

[Mokoa]

The History Channel is one of my favorite channels. Lots of good stuff there.

As for this particular miniseries, I was a bit disappointed about how some rather significant events were barely touched or even skipped altogether.

[ElisabethWhispers]

Just for a general back and forth, though, wouldn't it be REALLY tough to create a miniseries that didn't augment or not include a LOT of information?

A complete comprehensive study would be almost impossible, wouldn't it?

Elisabeth

[ANONONE]

Originally Posted by ElisabethWhispers

Just watched a little of it tonight and couldn't get into it. Why do you think that it might be "subjective" and propaganda? The reason why I ask is I agree with you but I'm not sure why.

That whole channel, and I'll admit to being a very new television viewer, seems to have programming that leaves me thinking, "Ah, what?".

Again, not sure why. This series it seemed would be interesting and why would the sponsor wish to misrepresent history in a slant?

Guess that would be a question for the ages, though.

Hugs,
Elisabeth

I may just be imagining things.

It just occurred to me that this show is painting our history while wearing some pretty thick, rose colored glasses: all patriotism with no wrongdoing on our part.

After about the seventeenth Bank of America commercial that uses the propaganda technique of transfer to link them to the "Spirit of America" in a program that was loaded with glittering generalities, card stacking, and assertion I began to smell something fishy.

Then I began to wonder if perhaps even when the historians that worked on the show may have proposed a few fair looks at both sides of the history, that it may have occurred to a few BOA executives that it would not work well for Bank of America with all that money they spent on transfer techniques if the "Spirit of America" was shown to be a bit self interested and motivated mostly by avarice.

I thought I would throw it up here for sharper minds than mine to discuss since this area of the board does swing for the fences when it comes to intelligent discussions about history and politics.

Can't you just imagine some suit at the board table going, "What the hell is this segment that makes people think the revolutionary war wasn't noble and heroic at all? You can't let people know the rebellion was really a group of businessmen that didn't want to pay tax and duty to pay for debt they created. . .why then that might make us look bad too."

[ElisabethWhispers]

BTW. It's 10:30 PM (Central), a little later actually, and the History channel is featuring the history of sexuality. So I'm getting offline for awhile!

Elisabeth

[oden]

Tax and duty equals money out of everyone's pocket, not just business. The English were protecting their own interests against the French in North America. The fact that we won self government by rebellion from a tyrant (king) does not diminish the cause of people to seek a say in their own governance.

Atrocities were documented on both sides and legitimate battle tactics have evolved since Hanable and Alexander.

John Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, defended British soldiers that fired on colonists that for the reasons you state: riotous activities.

Here in Texas, we tire of people who say that we stole our
State from Mexico. No, just like the USA, we kicked a tyrants ass and took it.

Maybe it would be better if the good people of Iran did the same instead of continuing to let their tyrannical poomba send real terrorists to try and disrupt self governing counties around the world.

[Chainsaw Anthropologist]

Originally Posted by oden

...Maybe it would be better if the good people of Iran did the same instead of continuing to let their tyrannical poomba send real terrorists to try and disrupt self governing counties around the world.

When you speak of Iranian terrorists disrupting things, you may wish to check back to the overthrow in 1953 of duly elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. "Operation Ajax" a staged coup was instituted by the CIA and their British counterparts MI6 in order to return the Shah from exile. It was done principally at the behest of the oil companies as a means of protecting their interests. Those being preventing nationalization of their companies.

Following it to a natural conclusion, because the Shah was restored to power, the ensuing revolution happened. The rise of radical conservative Islam, the US Embassy takeover, and the ongoing situation you see in the middle east today resulted. Left with their own peacefully elected government in Iran, you MIGHT see an entirely different situation there today.

The British, French and their oil interests (with a little impetus from the US) are also responsible for the country of Iraq. It was created (Sykes-Picot Agreement) following WW1 from a chunk of the old Ottoman Empire because they had sided with Germany and thus were on the losing side. No thought was given to the fact that they were combining the various disparate ethnic groups. Groups who intensely disliked one another and already had their little fiefdoms within the area that is now multi-ethnic Iraq. Once again, PERHAPS things would have been better left undisturbed.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by ElisabethWhispers

Just for a general back and forth, though, wouldn't it be REALLY tough to create a miniseries that didn't augment or not include a LOT of information?

A complete comprehensive study would be almost impossible, wouldn't it?

Elisabeth

Actually, Ken Burns seems to do a pretty reputable and thorough job. And he has tackled some pretty touch subjects. IMHO, his Civil War series is unmatched.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by ANONONE

It just occurred to me that this show is painting our history while wearing some pretty thick, rose colored glasses: all patriotism with no wrongdoing on our part.

Yeah, it would have been much more commercially successful if they portrayed us as a bunch of assholes.

[pyramider]

Originally Posted by Chainsaw Anthropologist

When you speak of Iranian terrorists disrupting things, you may wish to check back to the overthrow in 1953 of duly elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. "Operation Ajax" a staged coup was instituted by the CIA and their British counterparts MI6 in order to return the Shah from exile. It was done principally at the behest of the oil companies as a means of protecting their interests. Those being preventing nationalization of their companies.

Following it to a natural conclusion, because the Shah was restored to power, the ensuing revolution happened. The rise of radical conservative Islam, the US Embassy takeover, and the ongoing situation you see in the middle east today resulted. Left with their own peacefully elected government in Iran, you MIGHT see an entirely different situation there today.

The British, French and their oil interests (with a little impetus from the US) are also responsible for the country of Iraq. It was created (Sykes-Picot Agreement) following WW1 from a chunk of the old Ottoman Empire because they had sided with Germany and thus were on the losing side. No thought was given to the fact that they were combining the various disparate ethnic groups. Groups who intensely disliked one another and already had their little fiefdoms within the area that is now multi-ethnic Iraq. Once again, PERHAPS things would have been better left undisturbed.

Well put. The Brits basically drew lines in the sand in the Mid East, helping create the mess we have now. Let me add the way the Euro-powers carved up Africa wa are sitting on a powder keg.

[Sisyphus]

I really wanted to like this series but they lost me early on, too. Very first part... made it sound like the mother country wanted to tax the colonists out of existence. Perhaps... but only one side of the story.

From the British perspective, they paid to push the French out & then the colonists didn't want to pay for the service....

One could make the argument the birth of the nation was founded in thievery. Whites took the land from the Indians. "Americans" took the land from the British.....

Watch a few more parts but it just looked like somebody trying to justify a bunch of CGI graphics.