The Story of Us on History Channel—an attempt to revive the myths of American capitalism
By William Moore and Fred Mazelis
The United States emerged from a great revolution that owed much to the Enlightenment and in turn had a great impact on the subsequent French Revolution and later struggles up to the present day. “The Story of Us” presents it, in contrast, as simply the result of some uniquely American characteristics that came out of nowhere. “We are pioneers and trailblazers. We fight for freedom. We transform our dreams into the truth. Our struggles will become a nation.” This is the mantra that is repeated at the beginning of each episode, and it is designed to obscure the real history of the United States while fostering a chauvinistic mythology.
Banalities such as “the document that will change the world” (referring to the Declaration of Independence) and a battle “that will change the course of history” (the 1770 Boston Massacre) are repeated endlessly without the slightest further elaboration. Most significantly, the programs rely overwhelmingly for their “talking heads” not on historians who have actually studied the subject, but on political, military and business figures.
Historians like Gordon Wood, Bernard Bailyn, James McPherson or Eric Foner do not appear on these programs. Instead we get Michael Bloomberg and his predecessor as New York Mayor, Rudy Giuliani; Republican bigwig Newt Gingrich; NBC news anchor Brian Williams; generals David Petraeus and Colin Powell; fashion and lifestyle mogul Martha Stewart; actor Michael Douglas; and billionaire know-nothing Donald Trump, among others.
The review doesn't mention Indians. The previous review mentioned Indians once--when one tribe helped the proto-American colonists defeat another tribe. And...that's it.
If the series really doesn't mention Indians after the Pocahontas/Pilgrims phase...wow, that would be lame. All those broken treaties and wars of aggression whitewashed out of existence. Sounds like a conservative's wet dream of a history series.
Even the one mention above is lame. Indians helped the European invaders...which tacitly gave them permission to continue invading. Indians killed other Indians...so they were as guilty as the European invaders. In other words, mistakes were made...everyone and no one was to blame...so the European conquest could proceed without anyone's questioning its fundamental immorality.
And Obama shilled for this series with his "moral compass" quote? Other than during political controversies (Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.), has Obama ever said anything significant about America's racial history? Not that I recall. With his failure to mention the genocide against Indians or Armenians, he's proving to be a typical
The agenda here is the same agenda in Arizona's efforts to curtail ethnic studies. Namely, to maintain the status quo in which white male Christians rule America. We see stories about this every day. From General McChrystal's disparaging of
For more on the subject, see Conservatives Hope Minorities Will Forget and Ethnic History Corrects American History.
Below: Look, deadly savages! We had to conquer them for their own good!
4 comments:
"...From General McChrystal's disparaging of black civilian control..."
Do you have any evidence of racial decision making by the former General? If so, please present it. If not, you are making something up, and perhaps being racist here by wanting a Black president to be treated differently from a White one, and not be subject to criticism and dissent as a White president is.
Waiting for the evidence....
If the crossing out of black and replacing it with civilian is in fact the correction of a big goof, then the subject is closed.
What planet are you living on Dmarks?
What harsh words were ever used against Bush during Katrina; the liberty of Bin Laden; the bailout of Wall Street and corporate America while Americans faced evictions.
Obama faces more threats and condemnation than the combined 40 years of the last Presidency’s with everything from racial hatred to even the legitimacy of his birthright.
You seem to be a part of the status quo that excuses the “good ol’ boys will be boys” mantra while condemning legitimate victims of basic human rights violations.
There is a book called “The Enemy At Home” by Dinesh D’Souza. You remind me of his claim that the reason 911 happened was because liberals fueled the hatred of Islam against America when in fact, the Muslims simply got tired of Americans kicking in their doors and forcing democracy down their throats with weapons of mass destruction. Sound familiar?
You think there is a difference between Christian and Islam extremist while the dead see them as the same.
I crossed the word "black" out, so it's not officially part of this posting. I don't need to defend anything except the final version. ;-)
McCrystal already has subjected the first black president to criticism and dissent that no white president ever received. In case you haven't heard, the military prohibits soldiers from criticizing their commander-in-chief.
"What harsh words were ever used against Bush"
Were you even alive then? The calls for his assassination and impeachment and the constant hate and insults everywhere? If you still want to continue to lie that there were no "harsh words" against Bush, I suggest you start with the many anti-Bush bestsellers on the NYT lists during his Presidency, and then also check out a major network anchor (Dan Rather) fabricating the Bush AWOL story from whole cloth, to those on the Left who questioned whether or not Bush won in 2000 (the left-wing version of the "birthers")
"the bailout of Wall Street and corporate America while Americans faced evictions."
Not the best one for you to mention. While most Republicans opposed this, both Bush AND Obama pushed for and passed this. And after he was elected, Obama still pushed for and passed more bailouts.
"You seem to be a part of the status quo that excuses the “good ol’ boys will be boys” mantra while condemning legitimate victims of basic human rights violations."
Seem? Where is your evidence? You have none.
"Obama faces more threats and condemnation than the combined 40 years of the last Presidency’s "
Care to quantify this? I bet you can't. If you check real facts (like web references to Obama or Bush being called "arrogant"), you will find things much the same.
"You remind me of his claim that the reason 911 happened..."
How? I've made no such claim. You are now merely making things up. It's rather off-topic, and I think you are starting to get confused.
"You think there is a difference between Christian and Islam extremist while the dead see them as the same."
Now it is quite clear that you are responding to someone else, and not anything I said. You chiefly have no idea what you are talking about on any of your points. You type first and think later (or never). I am on record here as condemning the Christian element in the Serbian holocausts of the 1990s. And that is just one example.
----------------
Rob said: "McCrystal already has subjected the first black president to criticism..."
But is there any evidence that this criticism was in any way race-based? Any? By the way I supported McChrstal being sacked.
Post a Comment