"America: The Story of Us" Rant

[Tarheel]

I had to get this out of my system.  I do not know if any of you folk have been watching "America: The Story of Us" on the History Channel lately but it has suffered a major blow in my opinion.

I thought that it was a well-presented albeit abridged view of American History relative to the other rubbish that is broadcast.  That is up until I watched Episode Four.  Amidst all of the Experts, PhDs, and Historians who interjected their musings and reasoning from time to time regarding the causes of the War of Northern Aggression I saw Al Sharpton, Bill Maher, and Sheryl Crow offering their 'wisdom' (I had intended to use another word there).  What were the producers of this program smoking in thinking that it was a really splendid idea to give these clowns any kind of camera time on a history documentary?  I practically spilt my scotch and dropped my cigar when Al Sharpton appeared.  This man has no credibility and has had none since the Tawana Brawley incident if not before. Bill Maher is about as much of a history expert as I am a Cosmonaut.  And, lastly, Sheryl Crow?  Honestly.  It was bad enough to see Brian Williams of NBC on there but I gave him a bit of a pass since he pretends to be a journalist.

These appearances have ruined what I would have otherwise considered a fairly decently rendered historical documentary.  I can't wait to see what socialist and leftist dogma gets introduced in the 'Civil' War episode which I have recorded but have yet to watch.  I'm sure they'll leave out all of the Southern Victories like they did in the Revolutionary War Episode (I gave them a bit of a pass on this too but Uncle Sani will testify that I did vociferously object to it at the time that I watched it with him).  And I'm sure the rote cause will be slavery.

This series has lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned.  No wonder they're giving it away free to all Public Schools Government Indoctrination Centers.

Anyway, apologies again if anyone else has posted on this series elsewhere on the board.

Apologies too for posting this mini-rant in The SGA but I assumed there would be an obstreperous defense of Bill Maher's enlightened geopolitical and historical knowledge since he, Stephen Colbert, John Stewart, and David Letterman are THE news sources for the youth of America.  Then again perhaps that was the point of the History Channel having him as as "expert".

[AUTiger1]

Haven't watched that episode yet, but thanks for the heads up.  Cheryl Crow, Bill Maher and Al Sharpton as history experts?  So far it has been a decent watch, but I have seen a lot better work from the History Channel before and thought this to not be up to thier normal standards.

EDIT:  And good to see you on here again.

[JR4AU]

I had to get this out of my system.  I do not know if any of you folk have been watching "America: The Story of Us" on the History Channel lately but it has suffered a major blow in my opinion.

I thought that it was a well-presented albeit abridged view of American History relative to the other rubbish that is broadcast.  That is up until I watched Episode Four.  Amidst all of the Experts, PhDs, and Historians who interjected their musings and reasoning from time to time regarding the causes of the War of Northern Aggression I saw Al Sharpton, Bill Maher, and Sheryl Crow offering their 'wisdom' (I had intended to use another word there).  What were the producers of this program smoking in thinking that it was a really splendid idea to give these clowns any kind of camera time on a history documentary?  I practically spilt my scotch and dropped my cigar when Al Sharpton appeared.  This man has no credibility and has had none since the Tawana Brawley incident if not before. Bill Maher is about as much of a history expert as I am a Cosmonaut.  And, lastly, Sheryl Crow?  Honestly.  It was bad enough to see Brian Williams of NBC on there but I gave him a bit of a pass since he pretends to be a journalist.

These appearances have ruined what I would have otherwise considered a fairly decently rendered historical documentary.  I can't wait to see what socialist and leftist dogma gets introduced in the 'Civil' War episode which I have recorded but have yet to watch.  I'm sure they'll leave out all of the Southern Victories like they did in the Revolutionary War Episode (I gave them a bit of a pass on this too but Uncle Sani will testify that I did vociferously object to it at the time that I watched it with him).  And I'm sure the rote cause will be slavery.

This series has lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned.  No wonder they're giving it away free to all Public Schools Government Indoctrination Centers.

Anyway, apologies again if anyone else has posted on this series elsewhere on the board.

Apologies too for posting this mini-rant in The SGA but I assumed there would be an obstreperous defense of Bill Maher's enlightened geopolitical and historical knowledge since he, Stephen Colbert, John Stewart, and David Letterman are THE news sources for the youth of America.  Then again perhaps that was the point of the History Channel having him as as "expert".

I wanted to see it, but lost track of when it was set to be on.  Thanks for the heads up.  Hard to believe they'd enlist these folks to comment on U.S. History.

[Tarheel]

Haven't watched that episode yet, but thanks for the heads up.  Cheryl Crow, Bill Maher and Al Sharpton as history experts?  So far it has been a decent watch, but I have seen a lot better work from the History Channel before and thought this to not be up to thier normal standards.

EDIT:  And good to see you on here again.

Thanks AUT1.  My job has been a huge drain on my time for months (and still is...we need work!) but I'll make an effort to be here more often.  Facebook doesn't cut it for my political rants. 

And I heard that AUChizad missed me.

[GH2001]

I agree Tarheel - Ive watched a few episodes of it and there are so many fallacies. I really had high hopes for the series but Ive been very disappointed.

[Tiger Wench]

I have them DVR'd - are you suggesting they are not worth my time?  I was a History major as an undergrad - rewriting history pisses me off to the nth degree...

[Tarheel]

I have them DVR'd - are you suggesting they are not worth my time?  I was a History major as an undergrad - rewriting history pisses me off to the nth degree...

If you can get past the brilliant detritus of Maher, Crow, and Sharpton the first four episodes are not too bad.  I have not seen any episodes beyond those.  I could have done completely without their useless comments.  Sharpton's opinion and comments on any subject are enough to make me want defecate.

[AUChizad]

If you can get past the brilliant detritus of Maher, Crow, and Sharpton the first four episodes are not too bad.  I have not seen any episodes beyond those.  I could have done completely without their useless comments.  Sharpton's opinion and comments on any subject are enough to make me want defecate.

I haven't seen it, but I'd be willing to bet this is their only crime as far as this documentary is concerned. I doubt they stated any historical inaccuracy, you just don't like the messengers.

Can you name a specific comment from any of them that was inaccurate?

[Tarheel]

I haven't seen it, but I'd be willing to bet this is their only crime as far as this documentary is concerned. I doubt they stated any historical inaccuracy, you just don't like the messengers.

Can you name a specific comment from any of them that was inaccurate?

Not off of the top of my head Chizad but I'll be happy to set down and watch episode four with you when you take the time to watch it. 

It does not matter what Sharpton says or whether or not I "like" him; his opinion is irrelevant because he is without any credibility for the reason stated above.  His very presence on this documentary diminishes it's credibility.

But, to satisfy your question I'll watch episode five regarding the War Between the States and tell you exactly what he says that is inaccurate as I'm sure it will be every word that is excreted from his pie-hole.  I've deleted all previous episodes in disgust.

[bottomfeeder]

Facebook doesn't cut it for my political rants. 

I'm still trying.

[Tarheel]

I haven't seen it, but I'd be willing to bet this is their only crime as far as this documentary is concerned. I doubt they stated any historical inaccuracy, you just don't like the messengers.

Can you name a specific comment from any of them that was inaccurate?

Chizad, I was curious as to the opinion of this program by TV media-focused publications; this was what "The Hollywood Reporter" said about it in part:

...there is no obvious justification for allocating precious time to comments from people with little or no insight or expertise. Given how little Ann Coulter or Al Sharpton contribute to the understanding of contemporary issues, it seems a colossal waste of time to have them ruminate about the past. Others with seemingly nothing but a name to lend to this project include Donald Trump, Sean Combs, George Lopez and Richard Harrison of History's "Pawn Stars." It's enough to make one wonder whether Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian weren't available?

I thought that was fairly telling in that if a shallow, entertainment-centric publication could be so critical of Sharpton (and, yes, Coulter) then you can imagine what someone with a background in history thinks of his appearance.

By the way, I thought that Chairman Maobama's introduction was dignified.  Prof. Henry Louis Gates (who you may remember from the famous Beer Summit) also appears on the program and in my opinion his comments were above reproach.

Source:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/tv-reviews/america-the-story-of-us-tv-review-1004084694.story

[bottomfeeder]

http://www.history.com/shows/america-the-story-of-us/videos#america-the-story-of-us-division

[GH2001]

I haven't seen it, but I'd be willing to bet this is their only crime as far as this documentary is concerned. I doubt they stated any historical inaccuracy, you just don't like the messengers.

Can you name a specific comment from any of them that was inaccurate?

The way they frame the Civil War episode is horrendous.  The fact they stated that the war was the internal war of slavery really pissed me off.

[CCTAU]

The way they frame the Civil War episode is horrendous.  The fact they stated that the war was the internal war of slavery really pissed me off.

[Tarheel]

The way they frame the Civil War episode is horrendous.  The fact they stated that the war was the internal war of slavery really pissed me off.

Thanks for the spoiler but I expected as much.  I had planned on watching the War Between the States Episode tonight.  I already take exception with idea of the war being an "internal war".  The Blockade proved otherwise as did the fact that the CSA had it's own government with representatives in Europe, the Caribbean, and South America.

Slavery was a big reason for the war but it should be expanded into the proper context.  At it's very essence the war was a test of the 10th Amendment especially with respect to a state's right to secede from the rest of the states and a state's right to allow slavery.  I'd be willing to bet that Al Sharpton spoke eloquently on this subject. :heavy sarcasm:

Had there not been a civil war slavery would have ended anyway as the Industrial Age progressed in America and machines with interchangeable parts became less expensive.  I'm sure that they did not mention this either.

[CCTAU]

Had there not been a civil war slavery would have ended anyway as the Industrial Age progressed in America and machines with interchangeable parts became less expensive.  I'm sure that they did not mention this either.

You would be amazed at the number if "highly educated" people in this country who have no idea this was going on at the same time. They are taught that it was about slavery and only slavery and that we should feel guilt. Why should we feel guilt? Unless you are one of the relatively few families that owned slaves. My family did not and many others did not either. But they are trying to tell me that all of the non-slave owners fought purely for slavery?

History has been rewritten and the guilt that government schools have taught our children to have, has allowed history to be written any way they want.

[GH2001]

You would be amazed at the number if "highly educated" people in this country who have no idea this was going on at the same time. They are taught that it was about slavery and only slavery and that we should feel guilt.

This is how I felt the documentary framed the entire war.

[Saniflush]

This is how I felt the documentary framed the entire war.

I tried to watch it last night when I got in but it was late, I was tired, and I only made through the first 15 minutes or so.  Will attempt again this evening.

[AUChizad]

Slavery was a big reason for the war but it should be expanded into the proper context.  At it's very essence the war was a test of the 10th Amendment especially with respect to a state's right to secede from the rest of the states and a state's right to allow slavery.  I'd be willing to bet that Al Sharpton spoke eloquently on this subject. :heavy sarcasm:

I agree with this.

Some here will try to pretend that slavery was not a very "big reason". It was certainly over states rights, but the central states right in question was the right to own slaves.

[CCTAU]

I agree with this.

Some here will try to pretend that slavery was not a very "big reason". It was certainly over states rights, but the central states right in question was the right to own slaves.

It was an economic reason for the south. It was an emotional reason for the north once support for the war started waning. Northerners really did not care. They would just as soon let the ignorant south go away. Lincoln really did not care about the slaves. his only concern was to keep the union together. Slavery for the south was just one reason. Slavery for the north was their justification for continuing a war they did not want. Freeing the darkies was their emotional inspiration.