History Channel...........you kinda suck at history

What Sam Adams really looked like - note the "not a 
hunky type" vibe he's putting out - bad for TV I guess.

This past week (Jan 25th - 27th) the History Channel broadcast a 6 hour miniseries (1 - 2 hour episode each night over 3 nights) entitled The Sons Of Liberty. Did you see it? I saw it. There are 5 things that really suck in the History Channel presentation. They suck mostly because, you know, history seems to have been less important than entertainment. That's disappointing because it was on the History Channel, and with "History" being in the name of the channel one would think history would be pretty important. They probably should have called it "Boston 90210" or "Boston Place" or something more bullshitty because it's like nothing happened outside of Boston. Hello??? New York City, Philadelphia. Here are 5 things that just sucked.

1) Sam Adams is shown as THE central figure in the beginning of the movement for independence. Now, Sam Adams was pretty important, but he wasn't on the scale of John Hancock, or his cousin John Adams, or Paul Revere in the early days of the independence movement. He's portrayed as a pissed off tough guy itching to fight the British. He was really more of a writer, and speaker. Early in his political career he was quite a advocate of the Colonies. He's the one responsible for the idea "No taxation without representation" which in the context of the times meant that the Colonies should be responsible to collect taxes (which is funny because he collected taxes for the Colony early as a professional) and administering the affairs of the Colonies - not the British Parliament where there was no representation on the Colonies' part. He's also shown in the show as fighting, running across rooftops, causing trouble among the British troops, and even climbing aboard a ship during the Boston Tea Party brandishing pistols at the 2 guards on the ship before they jump into the harbor. In actuality Samuel Adams was not AT the Boston Tea Party, and physically he was not a tall, lean, athletic man. He was really kinda just a regular guy of his era. A great patriot, but not a brooding tough guy badass.

2) John Hancock is portrayed in the first 2 and a half episodes as a spoiled little rich kid merchant who has to be dragged along by Sam Adams. John Hancock is correctly remembered as a pretty ballsy guy who put his money where his mouth was when it came to the cause of the colonials. He was a merchant, and a rumored smuggler (though the Crown never got the charges to stick) who was with the movement very early on. He was a wealthy man who put it all on the line. Picture Bill Gates putting his fortune on the line to upend today's political environment. This mini-series really does him discredit. If you believe the show, he never really comes over to the movement until General Gage takes his house while Hancock tries to bribe him. I'd expect John Hancock to roll over in his grave, dig himself up, and beat the shit out the writer of the screenplay. They really make the President of the 1st Continental Congress look like a little pussy.

3) Where are Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson? Where the fuck is Patrick Henry? He WAS IN the Sons Of Liberty, and had the most badass quote of the movement. "Give me liberty, or give me death!" Now, neither Paine nor Jefferson were in the Sons Of Liberty, so it's fair that they're not really covered much at all, but when we get into the 3rd episode, and we see Adams and Ben Franklin at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia.  We see George Washington there. He meets our heroes, but shit it's George Washington. Gotta have some Washington in there. There's a "There's Thomas Jefferson" scene. Jefferson is mentioned by Ben Franklin as a candidate to write a Declaration of Independence when Sam Adams finally convinces the Continental Congress to declare independence - cuz it was originally his idea. The writings of Paine, and Jefferson - what were they?

4) General Gage is sent from England to replace the Governor of Massachusetts, and is such a dick that his wife has an affair with Dr. Warren - another member of the Sons Of Liberty. Gage was a dick, and it's been a historical rumor that his wife did get secrets to the colonials. But General Gage really never left the Colonies. After he fought in the French and Indian War, he remained in the Colonies as Governor or Montreal, and later as Commander in Chief of British Military Forces. As for his wife, the mini-series tells she was a pretty typical trophy wife of the era until she saw the good general giving it to a chamber maid through a keyhole, because back then keyholes were HUGE. I guess it's a good thing she saw that in the end, because she hooked up with the good  Dr. What luck!! If Gage doesn't take the chamber maid over the desk would we even be here today?! Gage does get a measure of revenge as he finds out about her dalliance, and kills Dr. Warren at the Battle of Bunker Hill. Warren did die in the battle, but was it at the hand of General Gage? Doubtful.

5) Interesting that the main sponsor of this mini-series was Sam Adams beer. Coincidence?!?!?! Look, the story of the Sons Of Liberty, Sam Adams, John Adams, Paul Revere, and others is really compelling. Does it really need to be sexed up, and made into a "one guy convincing the hesitant crowd that this is what needs to happen" narrative? That's good drama I suppose, but it's really shitty history. Maybe on another channel, but on the History Channel - I'd like to see, you know, history as opposed to a 6 hr beer ad.

Honorable Mention) Ben Franklin comes off as a 18th century hippie and remarks about the idea of independence during a conversation "Well that's an absolutely bat-shit crazy idea."

Really?

History Channel - this is how you do history.

I have really enjoyed The History Channel. It has produced many excellent multi-episode shows about The French Revolution, Man: The Story of Us, The Men Who Built America, and a series on all American Presidents, to now American Pickers, Pawn Stars, American Restoration. They're all good show, but come on, is Big Hoss getting a sweet deal on Clark Gable's condom box really history? Steve McQueen is the coolest guy of ever-all time, but Rick Harris's man-boner for all things McQueen is getting old, and I don't care if Frank gets the goddamn enamel Standard Oil sign for a good price either. History Channel has become another piece that celebrates consumerism. It just focused on history and pop culture.

If you want good history, you need to go to the American Heroes Channel. I know, what a dumbass name for a channel, but it's history programming is aces. The latest piece of history-wood inducing programming is the multi episode Apocalypse WWI.

It's 4 one hour episodes did an excellent job of going beyond the conventional narrative. Each episode is built around one year. The first episode centers on 1914, and focused mainly on the politics of the period in regards to the interrelations of the English, Russian, and German monarchies. It touches on the shaky nature of the Austrian Empire regarding the various slavic ethnicities. Lastly the heavy role of nationalism throughout European nations goes a long way toward explaining how the assassination of an heir would spiral from regional political quarrel to a full blown global conflict. If the lesson of WWII is the folly of appeasement, then the lesson of WWI is its contrary, the rush to fight for national pride.

The final episode is excellent in its exposition of the nationalism, and need to punish the Central belligerents, that pollutes the conditions Treaty of Versailles, and other peace accords, as a harbinger of what is to come. In the century since WWI we have emphasized the lessons of WWII, and lost sight of the lessons of WWI.

Santayana was right - over and over.

Those who fail to learn the lessons of history........

I saw this. I have to say, if there's one phrase that should discount Mr. Chalabi and the future of Iraq - more precisely the future of the territory formerly Iraq - it should be "Cheney's old pal." I'll leave it to the linked piece to detail all of the red flags regarding Mr. Chalabi. I will say again that Mr. Cheney, and the rest of the neo-cons, should never again be consulted on foreign policy. I mean, how wrong do you have to be before you stop getting invited to give an opinion?

I have an idea, and it's regarding the old "appeasement" argument. History tells us that the mistake the world made in the 1930s was appeasing Hitler, and that's a good lesson. That's not the only lesson that history teaches us, and it's not the most important. We have so overemphasized the appeasement lesson to the detriment of others. After the assassination of the Arch Duke Ferdinand in 1914 the world rushed headlong into World War I. That's pretty much the opposite of appeasement. We have fallen woefully short of appreciating that lesson.

To be clear, in the dichotomous political climate we live in today, I'm not advocating 1930's style appeasement, but I do think that somewhere between appeasement, and "We have to show these guys we mean business." is where the sweet spot is.

Take the latest development in the Russia/Ukraine crisis - the shooting down of MH17. There is little doubt that it was done by the separatists backed by Putin's Russia. Most of the information released indicates that the separatists received the hardware and training to show down aircraft from Russia. That said, there is still an investigation to do, and separatists hindering the efforts to do that only make them look more guilty, but can we start by talking to credible people about the area, and groups involved? That's be a good idea. One more thing, can we talk about what has happened in past comparable occurrence, and not the political mythology?

What I'm saying is that maybe we should heed the lessons of the advent of WWI, and not jump to conclusions, and make decisions that are not thought out thoroughly. There are 3 really big crises going in the world right now; Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Palestine, and the continuing fracture of Iraq and Syria and ISIS. Making a snap decision, and then building a case supporting that to show everyone "we mean business" is foolhardy, and short sighted. Cherry picking information and building up those that support that cheery picked data is what wasted lives and US fortune in the Iraq fiasco. If there's a lesson history can teach us it's that. Being so recent you'd think it'd be reasonably clear. We need to gather information first, THEN make a decision.

So please, stop talking to Dick Cheney.

It's been 100 years

June 28, 1914 the first domino was tipped. Dominoes from that that first historical domino, and the imperceptibly long domino chain that followed are still toppling today. Arch Duke Ferdinand was shot by Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo triggering World War I. It's history we've heard over and over, but unlike World War II, World War I is comparatively under studied, under discussed, and under investigated. Consider what would not have happened without World War I.

Without World War I, and the Treaty of Versailles is the rise of Hitler, and the Nazis in post war Europe possible?
If the Nazis don't ascend, does WWII become less likely?
Without WWI does Germany return the exiled Lenin to Russia to threaten the already weak Czar?
If Lenin does not return to Russia is there a Bolshevik Revolution?
With no Bolshevik Revolution, is there a different end to the Russian Czar?
Without WWI and the treaties defining its end, do Japan, and to a lesser extent, Italy, get the shaft as victors with no spoils?
Without hurt national pride to Italy and Japan begin their quest for empire?
Again, does this make WWII less likely?
Without WWI how does the end of the Ottoman Empire come about? Do the Ottomans crumble organically, as they had been, and then what does the Middle East look like if its borders are the result of its own regional political dynamics as opposed to the benefit of France and England as they drew them at the end of WWI?

None of this is to say WWI would never have happened. Europe in the early 20th Century was a tinder box of nationalism, competition among royals, as well as regional and ethnic strife. But we don't study the "War to end all wars" the way we study World War II. World War I was the beginning of the end of monarchies as a heads of state. It saw the end of the Russian Czar, German Kaiser, Ottoman Sultan, Austrian Emperor, as well as the dwindling importance of the English Crown.

Where are the movies about the soldiers, and generals that fought WWI? It's been easy to romanticize WWII. Villains are obvious, making the heroes just as obvious. WWI is not so easy to romanticize into conventional stories. The bad guys are not so obviously bad. The Arch-Duke whose assassination sparked it all was not a loved royal figure whose assassination was unforeseen. The Kaiser wasn't particularly evil and tyrannical. If we spent more time learning the lessons of WWI, and less time over learning, and misapplying the lessons of WWII we'd be in a better spot.

History Channel - come on man!!!

I generally love the History Channel.

There's a lot to like. Watching people barter, and price antiques on shows like Pawn Stars, American Pickers, and American Restoration, besides it's entertainment value, allows for spontaneous education. I mean, one can't help but learn SOMETHING from the experts brought in to assess objects ranging from a 1st edition of 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea to weapons from the the Colonial, and Civil War eras.

Where the History Channel really drives it home is the dedicated mini-series that focus on particular subjects like Mankind: The Story of All of Us, The Men Who Built America,  and The Ultimate Guide To Presidents all dealt with the subject matter interestingly, and informatively.

Needless to say I was in the early throes of a nerdgasm when History Channel promoted a 3 night miniserries - The World Wars. First off, it was three straight nights, not one night a week over three weeks. Kickass! Teasers promised that it treated the World War I, and II as a singular event, with a promised focus on the Treaty of Versailles and how it's terms contributed to the Second World War, as well as principles in WWII, and their development in WWI, and the interim time.

Well it was a waste. It sucked. Assassination of the Austro-Hungarian Arch Duke started WWI. That's the beginning! No deeper explanations of the web of alliances, and the dominoes that toppled after the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand. That's remedial 8th grade history. Lame!!

Any interesting tidbits? Well, the fucked up Gallipoli invasion was mostly the fault of Churchill. But it was underplayed if that cluster cost him credibility when he was the only one who really thought Hitler was bad news. That's another thing, they kept on the point that only Churchill thought Hitler was a bad guy, like if we had only listened to Churchill. The whole rise of the 3rd Reich is glossed over. 6 hours and they couldn't touch on how deep economic ties in the west were to industrial Germany in the 30s. That's kind of important I think.

What else? Oh yeah - a soldier had Hitler in his gunsight during WWI, but did not pull the trigger. How do we know that's true? It's not like there were big nametags on WWI uniforms. Shit, Hitler - as was customary in the early 20th Century - even still had a giant mustache as opposed to the teeny half-stache that was his hallmark.

The whole 3 nights was just reciting 8th grade remedial history. Hitler bad. Churchill and Roosevelt good. Stalin, kinda bad, then ok, then bad again.

History Channel - come on man.