21st Century History?

I've been watching the History Channel's new series "America the Story of Us" the last three weeks. I have to say, I am very very disappointed. Usually the History Channel does a better job presenting things, even when they are covering a lot of history in a short amount of TV time.

But this series, well, this series seemed more to me an aggrandizement of the USA. It totally glossed over a lot of info. I realize it's not meant to be an in depth presentation of US history. But seriously. I think the total amount of time dealing with the Native Americans, especially during the Westward expansion, amounts to maybe a half hour! It's ludicrous. The role played by Native Americans was important from the first moments the white man arrived here. The US government's and people's role in the decimation of the Native Americans is part of our history that should have had more discussion than what was shown. The move of the Indians to the reservations was maybe a 3-5 minute segment. Lightly glossed over.

The way the series jumped over things and ran things together seemed to suggest one thing led to another when it really didn't. I also didn't like how the presentation of the Civil War made it sound like everyone in the South wanted to keep slavery and that's why they fought. It came to a head over the issue of slavery, but what prompted the secession of many of the states, and many of the men to fight, was that of States rights versus Federal rights. Do the individual states get to make the laws or does the Federal government? It's an important aspect. Something that is still at issue today.

Case in point: The Underground Railroad. No explanation as to what it was, simply that it existed and Harriet Tubman rescued slaves at her own peril. Images shown? Tubman leading slaves through a swamp and being chased by white men with dogs. Nothing about how extensive it was, the number of people involved, including many whites. Made it seem like it was pretty much Harriet Tubman alone and consisted of running through swamps.

Or the part on the Donner party. Made it seem like they perished on the shortcut they took. They didn't. They'd made it back to the main trail. Also, the number in the party, what happened, and the fact that the cannibalism hasn't been proven. In fact, in the last four years or so, researchers at the campsites didn't find any human bones. Dog, cattle, horses, deer, etc, but no human bones. Anyway. Not even a mention that the cannibalism aspect might be pure sensationalism after the fact. (Discovery Channel did a great documentary on this that I saw a year or so ago.)

Maybe it seems like little things. But I was uneasy from the first. Can't really explain it other than the "glossing over" of things. And a general feeling of "Wait a minute. That's not quite right."

And then the people they chose to interview. Actors? Musicians? Reporters? Authors? Huh? Where are all the historians? Oh, yeah. They were all out filming the Ba.nk of Am.er.ica commercials! Very bizarre.

All in all, a poor offering from the History Channel. From whom I expected more! I can only hope this doesn't become a school resource. Wouldn't that be a pity. I'm not sure I can bear to watch the rest of the series.