History Channel - I get the distinct feeling it's English

ejmaztec

caoibhin wrote: »

Actually, its a myth that the English "stole" our trees. Ireland as an island has been inhabited by people who removed trees for agricultural practices for the past 2k years.

The country had a tree cover of about 20% in the 16th century so the notion that the English stole out trees is daft. The remainder of the forestswere indeed cleared during the Famine for fuel wood.

Never mentioned the English stealing our trees, but being as you know so much about it, I would suggest that you work on that programme with your team, and we'll collect a few more experts to cover the rest of the listings.

I can get my uncle to do a programme relating to his childhood arson, where he "accidentally" torched a small plantation. I think that his crime happened so long ago that it is probably statute-barred.

learnerplates

ejmaztec wrote: »

The Irish History Channel listing:

5.00pm The Irish Empire
5.01pm Fecked by the Vikings
5.30pm Fecked by the Normans
6.00pm Who stole all our trees?
6.30pm What have the English done for us?
7.00pm The History of political corruption in Ireland (part 1 of 90)
8.00pm That Bastard Oliver Cromwell
9.00pm The Murdering Feckin’ Tans
10.00pm Who do you think you are, and what’re doing here?
11.00pm How we got fecked in the famine.
11.30pm De Valera – The Wonder Years.

Very good I'd prefer to watch any of the above besides Elizabeth, Spitfires and WWII.
Sure there's all the pre-Viking history, Gaelic Law, Druids, who the hell built NewGrange, When the Irish invaded Scotland etc etc I'm sure there's lots more we could add to our replacement channel.

It does appear from this topic is not really much of an issue the repetition of programmes maybe more of an issue for most of you, if there's something else speak up, maybe the fact that there's no real history other than british is good enough for us:eek:.

tintin67

I'm amazed that you're upset that a channel broadcasting to the British should have an excess of programmes focussing on British history. We only get the station over here as part of the NTL/UPC or Sky package as an add-on in the same way we get CNN, TV5 Monde etc. It doesn't come as much of a shock to me to find so much emphasis on US news on CNN and so much darned French material on TV5 since neither are places I expect to find Irish programming. We have our own stations like TV3 for that. Oh, hang on...

learnerplates

No I don't think History Channel is british, it maybe american, the history.com shows a different program listing than what we get, there's links on the bottom of the website to other countries, most seem to have their own listings based on their own country.
Of course there was an argument earlier saying that we're only a small country etc so we shouldn't have our own channel............I still don't see why if we share with our nearest neighbours why we can't have some of our own programmes and also show programmes other than british ones.

Robbo

learnerplates wrote: »

No I don't think History Channel is british, it maybe american, the history.com shows a different program listing than what we get, there's links on the bottom of the website to other countries, most seem to have their own listings based on their own country.
Of course there was an argument earlier saying that we're only a small country etc so we shouldn't have our own channel............I still don't see why if we share with our nearest neighbours why we can't have some of our own programmes and also show programmes other than british ones.

Why don't you start your own History Channel. With hookers. And blackjack.

FionnMatthew

learnerplates wrote: »

...

I don't think we should do everything the uk has.
I do think that in the case of the History Channel we should be watching world history and Irish history and not just the uk version.
...

I'd like to hear from other history fans as to their perception of the History Channel service here in Ireland.

Learnerplates, exactly what sort of a "history fanatic" are you?

Because the last time I looked, the History Channel was a television station for reconstituted, docu-drama-style, history-lite mulch. Most of the time, it's just history-porn - history-themed reenactment, designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator by playing up the disaster factor, by playing up the human interest element, and by playing up the veracity of the research in order to give the mistaken impression that we know everything about what happened in the past.

I mean, all most of the "documentaries" on the History channel amount to is exploitation of the discipline of history, ancient and modern, and prehistory, in order to facilitate a sort of time-tourism. It's basically entertainment with a "history" theme. It's exploitative, misleading, inaccurate, even wildly erroneous. It's also often made by the ignorant for the ignorant.

You yourself have noticed a definite tendency towards it being skewed towards the entertainment compatibility of its main audience. This in itself should be an alarm bell. It isn't history if it's being mindlessly slanted in order to please a certain audience. Political skewedness is just one factor to add on top of all the other things I've just mentioned: changing history so that it's "more exciting for the viewer", "so that there's more drama for the viewer", "so that it's misleadingly vivid, in order not to confuse the viewer," and "so that we don't offend the viewer's political sensibilities."

What I think preposterous is that you actually seem to want a version of this for Irish audiences, which is erroneously skewed so as to appeal to Irish viewers. So that we can remember things favourably, rather than truthfully, all for the wonderful entertainment value involved in enterprises of that sort of nature.

Any history afficionado worth their salt finds this sort of programming patronising to the point of insult. The last thing, I suspect, any history fanatic interested in Irish history might want, is a reenacted, docusoap, peddling a rose-tinted, sexed-up, action-packed history chronicling the winsome resilience of the "oppreshed huddled masses," and the "heroic splendour of the brothers" and the "Saxon foe out yonder", etc etc etc. That sort of thing is only ever, if it is to do so at all, going to appeal to the most ignorant and crass of lowest common denominator nationalists, and so-called Republicans - those who really aren't interested in history, and are more interested in the fiction that lets them swell up proud and hate the British.

No thanks.

I suggest you read some books.

Lizzykins

ejmaztec wrote: »

The Irish History Channel listing:

5.00pm The Irish Empire
5.01pm Fecked by the Vikings
5.30pm Fecked by the Normans
6.00pm Who stole all our trees?
6.30pm What have the English done for us?
7.00pm The History of political corruption in Ireland (part 1 of 90)
8.00pm That Bastard Oliver Cromwell
9.00pm The Murdering Feckin’ Tans
10.00pm Who do you think you are, and what’re doing here?
11.00pm How we got fecked in the famine.
11.30pm De Valera – The Wonder Years.

That's the funniest post I've read in a long time! What gets me about the History Channel is the repeats and as someone has said earlier it's very fluffy history. I'm sick to blessed death of WW2 too.

elshambo

Could we do a series of programs about how Cork first gave itself the title "True capital Of Ireland" because it saw itself as the capitial of British rule.

Could do ep's about Queenstown, How Patrick Street shops had British flags hanging from them at the begining of the 20th century even though there was no law saying it had to be and the orange order being set up in BandonBRIDGE etc etc


:eek::eek::D

brianthebard

learnerplates wrote: »

You sound like someone who knows what they're talking about.
I understand that a pure Irish channel is probably now viable.

I don't see why NTL only provide the UK version of History Channel to us, personally I'd prefer to watch a Global version (US, UK, French) with some co-produced Irish content include some of the time.

Of all countries we should not be forced to pay for UK versions.

You have a very stunted idea of what history is or should be.

learnerplates

I'm by no means a historical purist and in fact know little about it, I have never stated otherwise.

History presented in books or tv cannot be purely based on fact can it? surely the producers must include some of the of their own prejudice, this is human nature after all.
History Channel is entertainment, if it wasn't it wouldn't be on the tv. But I'm assuming there is some fact involved. The producers will then include their own interpretation of the facts and dramatise it, that's life.
Also I have no issue with reinactments I find them very entertaining.

I for one would like to see documentaries based on fact produced on Irish history, and presented on the History channel, that's all.

Mossy Monk

FionnMatthew wrote: »

It's also often made by the ignorant for the ignorant.

Look at you being all high and mighty.

Sherifu

Zee Germans are coming.

FionnMatthew

learnerplates wrote: »

History presented [on] tv cannot be purely based on fact can it?

Typically, no, it isn't. But it could aspire to be more like actual history.

History presented in books... cannot be purely based on fact can it?

That's sort of the idea. Actually it's a simplistic way to state it. Often, huge time and effort is expended arguing about how to interpret something just to establish a matter of fact about things.

So what it turns out is that most so called "facts" of history are disputable. The facts are elusive. Many "matters of fact" that you are given in History Channel documentaries are likely to be embellished in their factual status, and disputable by established scholars in the field.

So it's not that history, as written, is "based on facts" that are always there to look at, available to us. It's that history is often the process of trying to render up facts to posterity. We have to go to our source, and establish what is a matter of fact, and what is likely from them, and argue our findings. And then they are vetted by the academy.

So no. History isn't "based on fact". It's based on textual and other sorts of evidence. But as for the spirit of your question - within academic history, it is looked down upon to make stuff up, or embellish the facts, just to have a laugh, or to play things up to an audience. In history, you're after truth, not entertainment value.

surely the producers must include some of the of their own prejudice, this is human nature after all.

History books aren't written by producers.
Writers of history do, yes, often employ their prejudices - in terms of their intuitions in their assessment of the evidence. The status of their prejudices rests on presenting their argument so as to make a compelling case for their interpretation of the evidence. This is the academic process.

The History channel doesn't do this. They present a continuous narrative, as if it were all fact, often playing up the disaster factor, or the drama factor. This is presented to the lay viewer as fact - not as a construal of the facts which is offered to the academic community for assessment. There is no "this is my take on the evidence" notice - instead it's just presented as "this is what happened." So the risk is that those concealed prejudices will be taken up by the lay public as fact, rather than contribute to an ongoing discussion on the evidence.

History Channel is entertainment, if it wasn't it wouldn't be on the tv.

I seem to recall rather good, diverting documentaries on the BBC, which didn't misconstrue the nature of the historic discipline, and which managed to be downright educational into the bargain. There's a difference between being mildly historied up by what is basically an entertainment programme, and mildly entertained by what is as basis a historical documentary.

The producers will then include their own interpretation of the facts and dramatise it, that's life.

No. That's the perversion/exploitation of history for commercial gain. It's not history. I for one am rather glad we don't have that perverting our national history.

Also I have no issue with reinactments I find them very entertaining.

Good. Why don't you watch pure drama, then? Movies about historical periods and wars? The production values are typically much much better, the choreography is often more imaginative. The cinematography more seamless - the drama written in such a way as to make the voice over obsolete. It's really very good you know. Or do you just prefer that nebulous, erroneous, "history feel" that history channel docs give you - that grainy camera, nervous extras in military uniforms etc etc.

Because you know, there's about as much fact to Hollywood movies as there is to this stuff.

I watched a few minutes of a History Channel doc about Cleopatra recently, and the producers had come up with, what I suppose they thought was, an extremely clever conceit - a forensic criminal investigation into the murder of Cleopatra. (!) So the main presenter, who was presented as some manner of "expert" but who quickly turned out to be very much a hack mooned around a bit making wild conjectures on the basis of very little evidence - (a cursory reading of one or two of the primary source texts - as if it was something special to consult such arcane tomes - you can only find Penguin Classics translations in every bookshop in the world, ready for first year undergraduates to read) and then decided to go to Rome to build a case against her "prime suspect" - Octavius. Rome! Where the hell was she going to go to find "forensic evidence" in the Capital city of Italy, that isn't already frequented by numerous scholars who are better placed to make a pronouncement on this?

So there was a little montage shot of her travel arrangements, during which she voiced over a little "preparation talk" for the Rome segment. She tried to fill us in on the basics - who Octavius was, where Rome is, what the state of the Republic was at the time, etc. She talked a bit about Octavius - telling us that when he became emperor he took on the name Augustus, because his pivotal victory against Antony had been in the month of August. (!)

Now, for someone who knows a bit about this, the notion of calling Augustus "emperor" is misleading in itself. Augustus status as the First of Rome is complex, and the office of Princeps had not yet assumed the status that we'd all recognize as that of a Roman emperor. Augustus was making it up as he went along, laying down foundations. And his powers and official status were constantly in flux. But this is trifling really, in the scheme of things, so just ignore this.

The real howler is the idea that he took his name, "Augustus," after the month of August. It's the other way around, for God's sake. There were ten months in the Roman calendar first of all, and the fifth and sixth were called Quintillis and Sextilis, respectively. Then, in 700BC, supposedly, according to semi-mythical accounts, Numa Pompilius inserted two more months, January and February, at the beginning of the year. Sextilis and Quintilis became the seventh and eighth months of the year.

In 8BC, he renamed Quintilis to "July", after his adopted father Julius Caesar, because it was the month in which Caesar had been borne, and he renamed Sextilis to "August" after himself, because that was a month in which several pivotal victories had been won that led to his preeminence in the Roman state. This continued a tradition of naming months after the gods, since previously January, March, April, May and June had been derived from the names of gods.

All of this is why, from much changed Latin, September means seventh month, October means eighth month, November means ninth month, and December means tenth month.

Anyway, I was so disgusted I turned it off. It was obvious to me that the programme wasn't about history - it was about trying to fit history into a narrow Dan Brown style conceit, and to hell with fidelity to the truth. The idea that this hack could brazenly reel off a list of supposed "facts" without being vetted by her producers was pretty telling. How could this woman get to present a history doc without any putative qualifications? How could she be in the position of informing a public about a subject she's mostly ignorant of? The likelihood is that many of the producers on these shows haven't a f*cking clue about history. They probably produce Cops clones in their spare time.

So which is it that you like, then? Do you want to be entertained by a sort of amateurish, badly produced fiction, which yet pretends to be history just to make it seem truthful, or do you want to actually learn stuff? Because if it's the latter, you ought to stop watching this trash. And if it's the former, I don't see why you don't just go knock yourself out with fully fledged entertainment-history-porn, and watch King Arthur, or The Mystic Knights of Tir na nOg, or some such.

I for one would like to see documentaries based on fact produced on Irish history, and presented on the History channel, that's all.

Good for you. Thankfully though, it hasn't been deemed viable enough to make a go of it. Which for me indicates that, according to market research for the History channel and its ilk, Irish viewers aren't nearly so partial to history-trash as English ones. So I suppose you're in a minority.

ShoulderChip

Superb piece Fionn.

learnerplates

That is a superb piece Fionn, kudos to you.
Tut Tut History Channel for telling lies, I'm not sure who is to blame the History Channel for showing such drivel or the producers of the programs.

So I can infer from this that the british based stories on the HC are inaccurate too, even worse than I thought. I'd rather see slightly inaccurate Irish History programs than british ones.
At least they could stir up some meaningful debates with learned persons like yourself Fionn, wouldn't that be great, an opening here in this forum for debating the validity of the previous nights program shown on History Channel (Eire).

If persons like myself are really interested then yes we can reference the legitimate literature for the facts (that some has written, which maybe disputed by others but written as historical fact none the less).
I see little harm in enticing the peasant masses, like myself, into local history with the medium of television. Those of us who can read are free to debate the facts in forums like this or god forbid face to face and validate our arguments with fact read from recommended books.

Maybe we should ban the History channel from Irish eyes altogether and petition RTE to increase their use of the License payers cash into production of historical documentary.