Posted on 12/20/2010 8:07:19 AM PST by brucek43
Recently the History Channel proved that it is as snarky as those of who watch it thought.
To wit: the Georgia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) wanted to run some ads on the History Channel. These ads pointed out the legal basis for secession and, quite accurately, that the North invaded the newly configured Confederacy (Manassas/Bull Run is, after all, in Virginia). Another pointed out that Northern interests essentially ran the Federal government, frequently to the advantage Northern supporters at the expense of the South. The most accurate ad of all simply stated that ANY STATE had the right to remove itself from the Union. It is fair to opine that, if our Founders had put an ominous clause in the Constitution forbidding an exit, our nation would have started out with many fewer states…including Virginia,... … Continue Reading:Boycott the History Channel’s Advertisers!!
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
Oh, ok. There is some of that. However, there is also the 2 hour special “Little Ice Age” that says that weather changes are not GW but just natural global weather patterns.
Hmmm... was that before or after Fort Sumter?
Ah, yes. "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"
Once you get past the slavery issue, the Lost Cause revisionists have won.
About as much as Pickers and Pawn Stars do.
> “Not withstanding, some of the shows that do air on the History Channel can be revisionist.”
.
Right, and we cannot tolerate deviance from politically ordained history. Who knows what might happen; freedom might even break out all over.
Crap, I don’t recall the name of the show, but was that the same one that was giving the German perspective on the “appeal” Hitler had?
I caught part of one this week that had interviews of Germans giving their version of events at the time indicating why Germans followed the Nazis as willfully as they did.
The documentary “The World at War” has two episodes that chronicle the war from start to end entierly from the German perspective. Gives a good insight into how an entire nation of rational people could go down a road that is (in retrospect) insane.
If our children were taught real history, there would have already been a secession, long ago.
Considering where we are heading, I would say it is becoming the last viable option.
Seriously, with all of the History channel’s defamations of Christianity and Jesus, you get ticked off because they refused to ran advertisements for the Confederacy’s secession? Interesting to know where your priorities.
Thanks for the info.
You’re correct CC, I could of used a more appropriate word vs. “appeal”. That was the first one that sprang to mind.
I look at 0haha and what he’s been doing and the comparisons between him and what Hitler did are striking.
Your interpretation of History may be different than others, by the way. That which you BELIEVE to be accurate, is based on someone's research and/or statements, as is ALL History (unless one were present).I don't believe you were present during the Civil War, and your "facts" are those recorded or "produced" by someone else. That's true of all History....it's passed on and filtered.
So what you’re saying is “everything is relative”? How progressive a thinker you must be!
Not all HC content is the same, for example, there is some subject matter that they will show in Canada but not here.
The HC doesn’t always provide a complete historical picture and sometimes distorts it.
It’s just entertainment.
Aw, heck... they was jest sore losers is all...
We have massive amounts of facts about the WBTS, most of them unchallenged. But a bunch of facts,even when compiled, do not constitute History.
History is important facts about the past, assembled and explained in such a way as to show what they mean.
Which facts you consider important and what they mean are be definition matters of opinion. Which does not mean that some opinions are not better than others.
Accurate history should include discussion of why certain facts were included rather than others, and why the historian reached his conclusion as to what those facts mean.
Unfortunately, this seldom happens. The writing of most "histories" starts off with the historian having a more or less fixed view of the Meaning of the period, then selecting the Facts that will support that view. Which is of course, IMO quite backwards.
We should try to understand the past for what it may be able to teach us about the present and future. When we manipulate the story of the past to try to impose our view of what the present and future should be, we defeat the purpose of history. Many of the posts on these Civil War threads illustrate this point perfectly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.