Lots of people, when
they want to view something of a historical nature, turn to the
"History" Channel on television. Unfortunately, in many cases, when
it comes to real history, that is one of the last places they should
go.
Over the years, on and off, I have
watched some "History" Channel offerings. Many others I have shut
off after the first five minutes. This channel takes a completely
politically correct view on most historical subjects. Some of their
programs, over the years, have questioned the truths found in Holy
Scripture, and done it in such a way as to leave folks who don't
really know much about the Bible with serious doubts. In this area
they seem to take a thoroughly humanist, anti-Christian position. Of
course they'd staunchly deny that, but I never recall seeing
anything on that channel that defended Scripture--only things that
questioned it.
They do exactly the same thing with programs dealing with the War of
Northern Aggression (a term they'd never use). Three years ago, if I
recall correctly, they broadcast an offering about Sherman's March
through Georgia that neither my wife nor I could stomach after the
first five minutes. It was pure pro-Sherman spin and little else. In
my opinion the "History" Channel has no interest in promoting
accurate history, but rather in propagating the standard propaganda
you would expect to find in any government school "history" book.
As we approach the Sesquicentennial observance of the War of
Northern Aggression this becomes all too clear. According to a
press
release on http://georgiascv.org
for November 29th "The nationally syndicated cable television
History Channel has made the controversial decision to force cable
television companies, including Comcast and Charter to pull adds
paid for by the Sons of Confederate Veterans in Georgia
commemorating the Sesquicentennial (150th anniversary) of the War
Between the States...Vice-president Nancy Alpert of A & E
Television, the parent company of the History Channel, gave the
following explanation of her decision to ban the historical adds:
'The subject matter of each of the
SCV ads, plus
the actual language...is well beyond our guidelines for any
advertising on AETN.' Alpert cited her opinion that the ads violated
History Channel guidelines by quoting, among other things, a
statement in one commercial that the war was 'Not a civil war fought
to take over the United States, as it is called in history books
today, this was a war...against an aggressive invasion by federal
troops'." What, pray tell, is wrong with that statement? It happens
to be the truth! It was not a war in which the South was trying to
take over or conquer the United States--all the Southern states
sought to do was to separate themselves from the United States via
secession--which was not prohibited in the Constitution.
Ms. Alpert seems to have had problems with the wording of the ads,
of which there were twelve. I have not seen all twelve of them, but
I did take the time to view six of them. I could find no problem
whatever with what they said or they way they said it. They told the
truth, but it would seem that the truth is a little too strong for
the "History" Channel. It appears that they would much prefer the
watered-down drivel about how wonderful Sherman's humanitarian march
was for the people and state of Georgia, or how the "Great
Emancipator" "freed" all the slaves (he really didn't free any).
One of the ads I viewed dealt with the Morrill Tariff and how it
penalized the South while helping the North. Another dealt with the
obvious theological differences between North and South. This is a
forbidden subject in history books today. Yet another ad noted the
cultural differences between the two regions. All of this is stuff
our current "history" books will not touch. It's the stuff of which
real history is constituted, and it's just those kinds of things
that the "History" Channel chooses not to deal with. I just wonder
if the "History" Channel people gave the Georgia SCV their money
back, seeing they opted not to run their ads.
Actually, in my opinion, the Georgia Sons of Confederate Veterans
did an excellent job with this series of ads. They were succinct,
well-done, and each presented a historical viewpoint that needs to
be dealt with, and did it in 60 seconds flat. The subjects noted in
each of these ads would be well worth doing a television
presentation, prime time, so that people going into this
Sesquicentennial year of the War could begin to see what the real
issues were that the South fought over. I'm sure the liberal and
socialist media will, for the next four years straight, hammer at us
that it was all over slavery and nothing else.
However, if you are looking for an honest presentation of what the
War was really all about, don't hold your breath waiting for the
"History" Channel to provide it.
For what you can do to
help, click here for the
Georgia
Division History Channel Press Release Heritage Alert (http://georgiascv.org/pr_history_channel_2.php).
|
