Dear Gentlemen[1]
I am writing to you to offer my assistance in your Department of Programming. Apparently, you have only some guy you found at a Star Trek convention and an aerospace engineer working for you. I hate to be blunt, but I have your best interests at heart.
For starters, Merriam Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary defines “history” as a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events. If we assume that “events” can be defined in this context as things that can be verified through half-assed fact checking, then shows like Monsterquest , Weird US, and UFO Hunters can not accurately be called “history” unless one accepts the existence of monsters, local myths, and UFOs, respectively. Maybe the idea here is that you are describing the searching for monsters and UFOs as the historical event. If you’re operating under this expanded definition of history, then you should then logically include searching for unicorns and Barbie Rapunzel. I know an eight year old girl who could help you with this. Her name is Georgia.
Also in this Not History-Category are shows having nothing to do with past events but are really about big stuff and blowing it up: Mega Movers, Mega Disasters, Sandhogs, Ice Road Truckers, and Battle 360. Honestly, the dude you found at that Star Trek convention really needs to get laid.
The remaining majority of your programming deals with WWII. Make no mistake – I am deeply grateful for and respectful of these heroes who literally saved the world from a raging psychopath, but enough already. Besides if the history about which you’re reporting happened within the lifetime of anyone still living on the planet, I’d argue it really isn’t history. It’s a memory.
In the law we have this thing called the Rule Against Perpetuities, a principle that no interest in property is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than 21 years, plus period of gestation, after some life or lives in being at the time of creation of the interest. (I know, I know, stay with me here). This Rule prevents a conveyances that can’t be ascertained, they’re so far into the future. If we reverse this rule to go backward, it presents an awfully good definition of “history” for purposes of your programming decisions:
Past events do not become History unless they occurred, if at all, not earlier than 21 years, plus period of gestation, before some life or lives in being at the time of past events.
To the extent you think I’m overly critical or just a blow-hard, you underestimate my eagerness to help the History Channel reach its fullest potential. Thus the tough love. History is such fertile ground, and we can learn so much from it. For instance, why have I never seen anything about Napoleon I, Elizabeth I, or John the Baptist I? When the Roman Empire lasted only about 700 years, could the US – only about 232 years old – learn something from Rome? What do we know about John Wilkes Booth’s mother?
I hope you take the foregoing in the spirit in which it was intended. I love history more than anyone. When my friends had posters of Peter Frampton on their bedroom walls, I had a poster of Alexander Hamilton. Together, I think we can achieve a History Channel everyone can be proud of. Rock on.
[1] How do I know there are no women among you? Because by my rough calculations, approximately 98% of your programming is related to firearms or explosives.
Bravo! (And by “Bravo!” I do not mean the television station, which I love.)
Thanks MRM!! I’m not familiar with Bravo. Does it have anything like VH1′s “Behind the Music?”
I kissss you!! That was the best letter of the whole year and, having read many superb letters over the course of it, I’d say I’m qualified to judge. (Of course, I’D say it).
Oh my gosh, you are gift that just keeps giving. As long as you blog. Maureen Dowd, my ass – that’s my new Leezer slogan.
I agree with you that they need to lose those “reality” shows, but I think your definition of history is far too narrow — If there’s someone alive who remembers it, it’s not history but just a memory? Past is past. “History” is an attempt to make sense of the past.
Cris:
Well thank you!
DigiTim:
I don’t think anyone is going to be taking my definition of History too seriously, it’s only an opinion. I’m off to watch The Arrest of Rod Blagojevich on Lost Worlds.
Time will tell. The truth will out, Leezer.
I caught something recently on History Channel. The History of Vampires (cuz they’re all the rage now you know…) It’s now on my Tivo…I saw part of it…I’ll get to the rest when I get to the rest…I lost interest when this psychic vampire kept hogging all the interviews…
Mae:
I know! I don’t get the fascination with vampires – and why is the History Channel reporting on it??? (Although the movie Twilight is sort of catching on!)
I’m a big True Blood fan (HBO, if you’re not watching…) I’m about to read Twilight….uh oh, I’m hooked! (But not on the History channel…)
While I will grant you your criticisms of the many irrelevant and slightly obnoxious reality shows that have recently appeared on the history channel, as far as your assessment of history as a discipline and the substantive shows that the channel has aired, you are pretty much wrong on several accounts:
1) as DigiTim pointed out, ANYTHING in the past can most rightfully so be considered a part of a historical narrative. and i think a distinction between “history” and “memory” comes out of pure ignorance. history is inextricably tied to memory – in fact, primary and secondary source research can often be characterized as an account of one’s memory of an event. history is an interpretive and analytical study of the past, grasping onto any methods of research at hand – please, tell me how memory is distinct and not included in that.
2)yes, the history channel appears to have a proclivity for WWII documentaries. but if you are to proportionately consider the wide-reaching effects of the war on the world-wide historical trends succeeding the war, i think the channel is fairly justified.
3) and i dont know about you, but in my fairly often encounters with their programs, i have definitely viewed shows on pre-modern history, the roman empire, and even on the hunt for john wilkes booth; if you want to find out about his mother (a criticism which you so acutely pointed out probably to prove your innate ability to provide a counterargument – albeit faling), look it up dude.
Sorry I’m reacting somewhat harshly, but as an honors history student at McGill University, i was pretty much offended by your ignorant and uninformed “criticisms” of the history channel. get your facts right, improve your writing and grammar skills, and come back. thanks.
Annoyed:
So when was the last time YOU got laid?
Lisa, this poor kid’s a honors HISTORY student. Who spends way too much time and effort on monumental tasks such as defending a television show on a humor blog.
I think it’s pretty clear he’s NEVER been laid.
Also? I think this guy would scare the bejesus out of him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6omQ5JjjLsE&feature=related
The History Channel should totally hire Eddie. Then I’d watch EVERYTHING they make.