The History Channel - from war to boobs to war again

[Neecy]

Given that the History Channel recently took a quick break from it's all-war-all-the-time coverage to give us such illuminating mind-rotting programming as "The History of Breasts" and "Sex in WWII" isn't it just a matter of time before they get around to doing a 'History of Bill Clinton's Cock' special? Wowing us all with lurid historical tales of where its been?

After all, this is the channel that claims that Ronald Reagan freed the Iranian hostages. "History", I suppose, depends on the viewpoint of the ownership, and we all know who's "history" we're seeing.

There's more to history than war (and boobs) but the HC (and to a lesser extent, the Discovery Times channel) gives us a 24 hour barrage of war progaganda. I get the feeling flipping through the HC that they're simply numbing us to the fact of war as a fact of life, one that will be ever-present as our Plastic Action Hero blasts the world into oblivion.

War isn't a constant condition, nor should it be. You certainly wouldn't know this by watching the bogus "History" channel. Boycott this crap.

Okay, rant over.

[dpbrown]

1. Disney, Hearst, and GE own the History Channel

And they all have industrial strength kneepads for BFEE.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

2. I Posted a thread on this a few weeks back

I feel your pain. I liked the History Channel when it was the Hitler Channel: all WWII, all the time.

One afternoon the line up was like this:
Saddams Tunnels
Sons of Saddam
Saddam and Osama

or something like that. The one that pissed me off was connecting Saddam/Osama.


Another one that's bad is the Discovery Times Channel (premium cable). A documentary on Yugoslavia slammed Clinton's foreign policy.

These networks really show who's controlling the programming, don't they?

[rusty charly]

4. they really missed the boat on this one

because WWII is now basically credited with creating the modern gay movement! it was the first time all these gay people were throw together from all over the country, where they probably would never have been exposed to other gay people. then they knew they weren't alone, came back after the war and the mattachine society, etc., were formed. and the rest, as they say, is herstory.

[Neecy]

5. The History International Channel is just as insipid

HIC claims that it brings us all kinds of fascinating viewpoints from different parts of the world.

I have yet to see all of these unique viewpoints flooding my dish. I saw one little program about how the French treated collaborationist women after the liberation, but the viewpoint presented was by the BBC and not French television. I guess the country involved doesn't have a say in how these unique viewpoints are presented.

It's just trash.

[htuttle]

3. Everyone I know...

...calls it the Hitler Channel due to it's favorite subject matter.

And for the rest of the programming and the Discovery channel: Do we REALLY need to know more about ancient Egypt? For crying out loud, how about some other cultures now and then, eh? (...although I think Zahi Hawass is always interesting -- enough with the riddle of the sphinx, already!..)

[happyslug]

6. I was watching a show on the Pinkertons

And had to turn it off within five minutes, the lies were to much. For example the show said that only two Pinkerton agents ever killed a labor workers in the 1800s. That is an out and out lie. Now only two Pinkerton Agents were ever charged that is because if an Agent killed a worker the first thing the Pinkertons did was ship the Agent out of that state and than refused to give his name to the Authorities (and NEVER to the Labor union the person paying them where in Conflict with). This prohibited any indictments for you have to indict a Person NOT someone you do not know. Furthermore the Pinkertons had the practice of importing agents from other states to do the dirty work of Labor Suppression. This helped in avoiding arrest for the Agent who did the killing just went home (which was almost always out of state).

The second lie was that by 1900 the Pinkerton has voluntarily withdrawn from anti-Labor activities. Another lie, the Pinkertons withdrew for most states adopted laws that required any sheriff deputy, law enforcement officer or Private Detective to have been a resident of that state for one year or longer. This law was first passed In Pennsylvania after the Homestead Strike of 1892 where the Pinkertons had tried to re-take the Homestead Works but was prevented do to the actions of the Strikers. The Pinkertons claimed their had been deputies by the Allegheny County Sheriff and thus the resistence was against law enforcement officers. The Strikers pointed out the Sheriff claimed he had NOT deputized the Pinkertons and thus any fight was a fight between citizens NOT a fight against law enforcement officers.

Given the position of the Sheriff the Court were reluctant to go after the strikers and given the power of Frick, Carnegie and the Pinkertons the Courts did not want to go after the Pinkertons so the whole incident lead to no legal action against anyone (Some of the Union Bosses were indicted but the cases were either dropped or the Jury acquitted. Please note I am referring only to the Pinkertons involvement in the Homestead strike, the Strike itself lead to claims and cross-claims of Murder, attempted Murder that lasted for years in the Allegheny County Courts).

Do to this "confusion" as to the legal status of the Pinkertons at Homestead, the Pennsylvania Legislature adopted the one year rule, and is still the rule in Pa and other states. It was do to the adoption of this law that the Pinkertons removed themselves from Strike Breaking. Thus the reason the Pinkertons left the Strike Breaking business was that their style of Strike Breaking was made out lawful and the Pinkertons first preference was always to do as people pay them to do NOT to obey the law.

No “Fair and Balance” review of the History of the Pinkertons could ignore that history. I did not last long enough into the program to see if they took credit for having the first head of the Department of Treasury’s Bureau of Investigation (Burns, who later founded Burns Detective Agency) and the Bureau’s second head (J. Edgar Hoover, who changed the name to the “Federal Bureau of Investigation” i.e. the FBI).

And I did not see how the show addressed (if their addressed it) the Pinkerton’s attempted bombing of the Jessie and Frank James. In that bombing the Pinkertons went to the James boy’s Mother’s house and believing that the both Jessie and Frank were in the house threw a bomb into the house. The James boys’s mother was in the house along with their nine year old half brother. One moment it was a peaceful sunny day, the next thing the house was blown apart. No warning had been given, the bomb was just thrown in. The Pinkertons would later claim that they did not give a warning for their feared that the James Boys would run out of the house and escape. Instead a nine year old child was killed and a middle age women had her one side blown to bits.

Does this sound familiar? Could the Pinkerton of the 1800s still live today? In Ruby Ridge the FBI did admit that the orders of engagement violated the US Constitution (i.e. orders to shoot to kill). Like the Pinkerton’s bombing of the James Boys, no one went to jail in that murder either.

I doubt any of this was addressed in that show, and that is the basis of the what my niece calls the "World War Bore" channel. Addressing things like the above would be interesting but the History Channel tends to avoid anything that corporate America might object to.

[laconicsax]

7. I've gotten so sick of the 24/7 propaganda

I used to be able to watch stuff on both History and Discovery channels. I always liked watching the modern military technology and the firearm history shows. They still run those, but it's all old now and being replaced by the propaganda.

One of the channels was doing a show on the U-boat that the allies captured during WWII. In the part where they said that in order to keep the Nazis from finding out that the sub had been captured, they hid the crew away for a while, shipped them out to a secret POW camp, and didn't tell the Red Cross about them. Whenever a POW in the regular camp recognized or made contact with a POW in the secret camp, they were transfered to the secret camp.

I was surprised that they mentioned that, since there's never anything critical of the military in their programming. The way they delivered it was disgusting though--light, happy music in the background, and the interviewees talking about it in a joking manner--like it was a cute, clever thing to do. Certainly not a gross violation of Geneva.