The History Channel

[Tom_in_CA]

I suppose you can watch the same story being reported by MSNBC and FOX and NOT notice the differences? I can.

So to make sure : You're exempt from this rule-of-thumb, right ?

 

[FreeBirdTim]

That's not politics. I can, and have, read various historians that do not agree. So, obviously "historians" are not 100% accurate all the time. And yes, history is written by the victors. If you don't believe me, read some history books that were written 60 or 70 years ago and compare them to ones written today.

The Civil War is referred to as "The War of Northern Aggression" down South. Perfect example of the losers in a war trying to re-write history and give it their own slant on something...

 

[Tom_in_CA]

The Civil War is referred to as "The War of Northern Aggression" down South. Perfect example of the losers in a war trying to re-write history and give it their own slant on something...

Actually, if this ^ ^ is the case, it merely goes to show that the platitude slogan of "history is written by the victors" is not necessarily the case.

 

[Casull]

Huh ? The "history that is taught" inc's the "history" I spoke of in post #17

Right.

 

[Casull]

The Civil War is referred to as "The War of Northern Aggression" down South. Perfect example of the losers in a war trying to re-write history and give it their own slant on something...

Someone apparently doesn't understand history. The southern states, through their elected legislators voted to seceed from a union that the states voluntary entered into with each other. When they attempted to do so, they were invaded by the union. Sounds like aggression to me.

 

[SeabeeRon]

Someone apparently doesn't understand history. The southern states, through their elected legislators voted to seceed from a union that the states voluntary entered into with each other. When they attempted to do so, they were invaded by the union. Sounds like aggression to me.

Let’s not fight the Civil War all over again. Please move on.

 

[Xxray]

Everybody puts their own slant on things, EVEN so-called "historians". Unless of course you think Lincoln invaded the South to stop slavery.

Some do [put their own slants], maybe even most.
Those are called "propagandists", but there is plenty of great history books without bias or agenda.
I used to be an off the hook reader, mostly warfare and history. A guy named Samuel Eliot Morrison wrote a stupendous 15 volume series of books "The History of United States Naval Operations in World War II" that is highly accurate and unbiased, I must have read them 3 or 4 times, and owe much of my knowledge of WW2 naval operations to them.
Civil War ? Looks no further than Shelby Foote, a 3 volume set of books [each one about as thick as a yellow pages], he is highly regarded as one of the most comprehensive and unbiased writers on the subject, read those 3 or 4 times too.

Even Winston Churchill, whom one might expect to be a little biased, was really not. Hes got volumes on WW1 and WW2 [yep, read those 3 or 4 times too] Among even more, and he uses official documents to back up most of what he says, and doesn't spare himself when it comes to bad decisions he may have made.

But yeah, alot of it is in the eye of the beholder I guess, I can usually tell early on in a book if its legit history, or attempted propaganda.

 

[stetam]

Made for TV moments aside, the History Channel does put out some great historic information.

Steve who is always learning

 

[Tom_in_CA]

......... there is plenty of great history books without bias or agenda............

Good post Xxray.

And I would also add that : Those that try to dismiss whatever some other source says, by merely attaching the word "biased" to it (Eg.: "history is written by the victors, blah blah"), will always implicitly exempt themselves . In other words, by their measure, you can dismiss whatever other citation/source they don't like, because those citation/sources HAVE to be "biased", according to them.


But notice they do not apply that same measuring standard TO THEIR OWN views . Of whatever-the-subject-at-hand happens to be. In other words, they exempt themselves. As if they, alone, are the un-biased ones of the world. Mighty convenient of them, eh ?

 

[bottlecap4u]

An exercise in Rhetoric. This thread is interesting, as to 'expertise' being put forth, mentioned in the History Channel scenario, think we've all seen that experience before with media such as Fox and CNN, et. al., almost daily pimping out a so called 'expert' to push the narrative put forth on any particular day. Just switch back and forth between the two stations on any given day, keep an objective mind, generally you see Biden-bashing/boarder out of control and Trump vilification. Definitely a reason for this and will continue to intensify as elections draw nearer. For historians, media partisanship, including pushing "alternative facts" is nothing new in our democracy, so no fear we are seeing a new phenomenon in our times, newspapers did much the same thing, just glance through old 1860 archived periodicals of northern and southern papers as a good example and watch the vitriol run, including vilification of Lincoln (complete with a drawing of him as an Ape), yup, called him Ape Lincoln and slave-beating, slack jawed southerners. As to the telling of "history", seems more dynamic than static. Seems at the time of its 'telling' it reflects the thoughts and mood of the times, in the very words of the used in those times. Though events happened, there telling does change over time, leave it to the reader to sift the truth. I still read old 1800s historical texts about the civil war, and local newspaper inserts pushed out by our local historical society dating as far back as the late 1800s, the words are so much different and give, at least insight, more in the teller, than the telling...which interests me probably the most.

 

[Coin-Saver]

My original post was just about The history channel as a tv channel and the need for ratings to make the money. Now it's turned into a thread that makes me think that somewhere today two friends will be fencing each other with their detectors over the civil war..............No doubt one will have a Manticore and the other a Deus II.....and I hate to say this but the Legend would probably be the sturdiest one for fencing. Hey......Wait a minute........I just created the next History channel metal detecting show.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.......... This thread is interesting, as to 'expertise' being put forth, ..........

How about this summary : Science doesn't say anything. ScienTISTS say things. History doesn't say anything histORIANS say things. Politics doesn't say anything, PoliTICIANS say things. News doesn't say anything. NewsCASTERS say things. And so forth. Eh ?

And if anyone says they're not biased about their world-views-of-things, they're : Not 'fessing up. That includes me, here & now : Guilty as charged !

 

[Coin-Saver]

How about this summary : Science doesn't say anything. ScienTISTS say things. History doesn't say anything histORIANS say things. Politics doesn't say anything, PoliTICIANS say things. News doesn't say anything. NewsCASTERS say things. And so forth. Eh ?

And if anyone says they're not biased about their world-views-of-things, they're : Not 'fessing up. That includes me, here & now : Guilty as charged !

By the way, TOM didn't really say that......a Thomasonian did.

 

[bottlecap4u]

My original post was just about The history channel as a tv channel and the need for ratings to make the money. Now it's turned into a thread that makes me think that somewhere today two friends will be fencing each other with their detectors over the civil war.............

See how one can lose control of the narrative,

 

[FreeBirdTim]

Someone apparently doesn't understand history. The southern states, through their elected legislators voted to seceed from a union that the states voluntary entered into with each other. When they attempted to do so, they were invaded by the union. Sounds like aggression to me.

Let it go. The war ended 159 years ago and we won. No one likes a sore loser.

 

[Xxray]

Good post Xxray.

And I would also add that : Those that try to dismiss whatever some other source says, by merely attaching the word "biased" to it (Eg.: "history is written by the victors, blah blah"), will always implicitly exempt themselves . In other words, by their measure, you can dismiss whatever other citation/source they don't like, because those citation/sources HAVE to be "biased", according to them.


But notice they do not apply that same measuring standard TO THEIR OWN views . Of whatever-the-subject-at-hand happens to be. In other words, they exempt themselves. As if they, alone, are the un-biased ones of the world. Mighty convenient of them, eh ?

Well I don't know, we are getting quite expansive here.
Obviously, some things are very biased, overtly biased even ,, And they are not to be called out, lest we be called biased ourselves ? Sure, alot of people think they are the sole source of the fountain of truth, and will reference nearly unlimited filtered facts to prove it, especially in these days of google experts. For me it is fairly easy to tell a legit expert from a google expert, if its a subject that I am well versed on.
Most people advancing agendas with lies, half truths, propaganda are shameless and don't care about being called out and proven wrong, proven to be liars. They just keep right on going, brushing the truth off like pesky mosquitoes. none more so than in politics, from the very top on down, following the old adage from a master propagandist “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”

 

[Casull]

By "slant" there ^ ^ , I assume you mean various inaccuracies. Right ?

If so, then order to take that ^ ^ for a test drive, I need to ask you : Does "everybody" include you as well ? Or are you exempt this accusation of necessary inaccuracy ? For example, is this statment true that:

"... Everybody puts their own slant on things...",

Or can I dismiss this, since .... you said it, and it's therefore slanted ?

Do you see how the statement becomes self-refuting ?

I had a brother in law who always thought he was the smartest guy in the room too. Yes, I do have my own slant on things. That in and of itself does not make my statement "self-refuting". If I say that the sky is blue, my "slant" does not make that statement false (assuming of course the sky happens to be blue that day). Just like if I said that everybody lies from time to time. That would include myself, but that doesn't make that statement "self-refuting". I can acknowledge and make comment about an observation, even if I am a member of the group involved.

 

[sube]

My original post was just about The history channel as a tv channel and the need for ratings to make the money. Now it's turned into a thread that makes me think that somewhere today two friends will be fencing each other with their detectors over the civil war..............No doubt one will have a Manticore and the other a Deus II.....and I hate to say this but the Legend would probably be the sturdiest one for fencing. Hey......Wait a minute........I just created the next History channel metal detecting show.

What will they do when they bring the big cannons CTX ? sube

 

[Tom_in_CA]

........ If I say that the sky is blue, my "slant" does not make that statement false ..........

So then : "Slant" does not necessarily mean : Incorrect. Right ?

But go back at your post #11. See how that, when taken in context of the rest of your post there, had characterized word "slant" as in the pejorative sense. As in : "Faulty" or "skewed" or "incorrect" or "can't be trusted", etc.....

But now you seem to be characterizing the word differently in #37.

 

[Casull]

I never said "slant" means incorrect. It may or may not be. Slant means bias. Something can certainly be written in a manner that is technically correct, but also be written in a manner that is meant to prejudice. Leading questions for example . . . "have you stopped beating your wife". For a better example, read some Snopes "fact checking" articles for both conservative and liberal claims and tell me then if you see any "slant".