Posted by Eleanor on 5/10/2002, 11:39 pm --Previous Message-- As a form of entertainment, maybe it's not. As something being passed off as "history", it is. I find it insulting to the people who actually lived back then, the people whose shoulders we are standing on. Remember, these are the people who invented the flush toilets we all (myself included) bless and use every day ~ they did it because they were intelligent, capable, obervant people who didn't enjoy outhouses any more that we do. Maybe not Yes, well, why is PBS creating a show like that and calling it a "documentary"? It's a spectacle show, nothing that has to do with the history that they are trying to exploit. I think it was a cheap trick to get ratings, and that it did not fit the mandate of PBS. Of course, Can't stand Survivor -- the idea that you're there to take out your teammates is just something I find morally reprehensible. Social Darwinism for voyeurs and profit. The Amazing Race is another thing -- not something I watch regularly, but interesting, and competitive, while not being nearly as nasty and exploitative as Survivor. (Just my opinion, but I are a fuss-budget. Survivor is where it belongs, on for profit TV.) I love to see people dropped out Please understand that I reenact several periods, and I strive to understand the world view of the people who lived then, so I can present it to students, to myself, and to my readers in as real and as valid a way as possible. I work hard at respecting my ancestors by dealing with life as they had, for a little while, and I cheat like heck. (If there are toilets and running water to be had, I use them gratefully!) "Frontier House" didn't even TRY to do that. My picture is probably in the Again, I think a show like that had no business on PBS, pretending to be historically relevant. I admit, I usually still People will make mistakes, in all good faith. I do. Historians are always discovering, revising, that sort of thing. But, this was deliberately egregious. Anything for entertainment! Alas, I just cannot agree with you there. There are many, many, many things that are justified as "entertainment" that are just exploitation, at the very least. That's true! It's been rather quiet lately. My fault, I fear -- so in the interests of giving people something to talk about, let me get back to work. Cheers!
Well, Ken Burns did a good job on his Twain and Louise and Clark and Baseball documentaries, but I have grave reservations about his Civil War documentary. But, since that sort of innacuracy and such doesn't bother you, you'd probably enjoy it just fine.
: Well, I admit I only saw about an hour but I
: will say I still enjoyed it. I know it
: wasn't completely accurate, less than I
: thought apparently (don't blame my
: teachers, they did their best to stuff
: everything in my head...some of it just
: fell out in the five years since high
: school...hehe). And despite my having
: read some of Laura Wilder's books (and
: adoring them), I still think this was
: probably not that bad.
: historically accurate but still a good
: reflection maybe not of what life actually
: was but rather how pathetic most of us
: (me, I admit me, I need indoor plumbing)
: would be in (if not actual frontier
: living) a more rustic setting.
: I am also writing this from the
: perspective of a Survivor and Amazing Race
: fan. 
: of their element though I would never do
: it myself.
: dictionary under "scaredy cat."
: 
I do thank you for analyzing the show
: from a more historical standpoint...I do
: like to be clear on the accuracy of the
: shows I see.
: watch and enjoy all the inaccurate ones
: but I like to be aware of the inaccuracies
: going in, that's just me. Besides, this board
: needed some good conversation.
Eleanor
Message Thread:
« Back to thread