[nearmiss]

Novotny

You are correct about the history channel as far as accuracy is concerned.

The history channels = entertainment

That said I think one important issue is the fact that people are still getting alot of information, even if the i's and t's aren't getting dotted and crossed. As a student we were forced into the quagmire of detail, which is not memorable. I favor history any way it can be explained and people are interested to listen.

Ignorance of history is a detriment to organized societies. History must be a part of counsel for societies or they will repeat mistakes of the past. The study of history is invaluable.

I had a great history teacher in university, because he dramatically told the stories and recounted the events. His classes were always maxed out, and he nurtured in all his students a desire to know more. Then of course he had to test us by departmental tests. Tests that were the same old precise dates and detailed stuff we would all forget before the semester ended.

I favor the history channel, even for religious history. Religious history always shows always promote the 'create doubt" of creation theory. IMO, people who have half a brain can interpret the data and make their own minds are not influenced.

The series on Battlefield 360 on the Enterprise is very well done from an entertainment and historical standpoint. The major points most people will remember were very well covered. I've heard friends discuss various episodes and I was pretty amazed at how interested they were, and how ignorant they were of WW2 in the Pacific.

When I started IL2 I knew absolutely ZIP, NADA about the Soviet Air war. I've since read dozens of books and developed a real respect for the Soviets. A respect that I had not learned from all the negative banter of a lifetime I'd heard about Russia.

So, I think it's fair to say that no matter how history is taught I'm in agreement... unless it's propagandized to promote someone's agenda.