Protest the History Channel’s documentary on MLK!
Join the action alert mailing list! | More on race realist activism | Take the Activism Pledge! | More Action Alerts
This week’s action alert asks readers to protest the biased portrayal of the “civil rights” movement in the History Channel’s documentary King. The documentary predictably reduced the complexities of the civil rights movement into a simple-minded fairy tale in which Martin Luther King represented “love” and the segregationists “hate.” Even though many segregationists were respected scholars who made reasoned arguments against racial integration, the only opponents of King that we saw in the documentary were Klan members, neo-Nazis, angry mobs, and ranting public officials.
In case you’re one of those backwards reactionaries who failed to worship at the shrine of King on Sunday night, the History Channel’s promotional material for King will give you an idea of what you missed. For more on King, see The Ugliest Day of the Year.
The History Channel welcomes viewer comments on its programs. To ask for an objective and impartial portrayal of the “civil rights” movement, send the e-mail below or one of your own composition to thc.viewerrelations@aetv.com.
Thanks for doing your part!
Subject: King was propaganda, not history!
Body:
Dear Sir or Madam:
Your documentary King was more propaganda than history.
The documentary reduced the complexities of history to a simple-minded fairy tale of good against evil, in which Martin Luther King and his followers represented “love” and those who opposed him represented “hate” and “man’s inhumanity to man.”
Of course, there was much irrationality and hatred on the segregationist side of the civil rights debate. However, casting these as the sole motives of the segregationists, as King did, is a grotesque caricature. There was much more to the segregationist movement than Klansmen, neo-Nazis, and “Bull” Connor’s snarling police dogs.
The segregationists counted many distinguished scholars and commentators among their ranks, including James E. Garrett, former president of the American Psychological Association, Ernest van den Haag, professor at New York University, and Carleton Putnam, author of Race and Reason. These men made reasonable and factual arguments against racial integration. Segregationist scholars offered scientific evidence that the genetic differences between whites and blacks were so large as to make integration impossible. They also defended segregation on the grounds of freedom of association, a basic human right. Furthermore, they made a persuasive case for the constitutionality of the “separate but equal” policy that governed American race relations before the civil rights era.
When I turn on the History Channel, I want to see history, not fairy tales. That means I want to see documentaries that present an impartial and objective account of the strengths and weaknesses of both sides of historical conflicts, not one-sided propaganda.
Sincerely,
If you want this article to be exposed to a wide audience, take the time to recommend it at digg. Millions of readers traffic the site, and the more recommendations an article gets, the better its chance of being read. If you don't have digg account yet, registration is easy. Just click submit to get started. |
Any time anyone finds out about a TV program that ought to be protested, it is crucial that you tell me, either by dropping me a line through the contact page or by posting a comment on the Activism Suggestions page. TV has more power to mold public opinion than any other institution, so I think many people are powerfully motivated to protest biased TV shows.
By on 4/8/08 at 10:10 pm
Drafted my own and sent it (thought it would be more powerful if it’s not the same mass-mail message every time):
To Whom It May Concern:
Your recent documentary “King” was a very one-sided and mythologized view of the Civil Rights Movement. I have seen an online commentator refer to it as a “simple-minded fairy tale of good against evil, in which Martin Luther King and his followers represented ‘love’ and those who opposed him represented ‘hate’.” I could not agree more.
There was hardly any divergence from this portrayal. Ignored were the dark motivations and methods of many of those that stood on Martin Luther King’s side (from Communist Party officials to dishonest social scientists). Also ignored were the rational arguments and decent character of many segregationists during that troubled time. In the world of the “King” producers, history seems to be a simplistic morality tale in which those who happen to fall on the “wrong” side from our modern vantage are invariably evil.
In the end, it is likely a question of what type of viewers your channel desires. If THC elects to spoon-feed uneducated people with an all-or-nothing view of history, then “King” and other such programs are appropriate. If, however, you want to present the complexities of history, “warts and all”, and allow free viewers to decide their own views of the American story, then more intelligent and balanced programs are in order. As a frequent viewer, I hope you choose the latter path in the future.
By on 4/9/08 at 3:20 pm
Very good. I sent it.
By Jewish Racial Conservative on 4/8/08 at 7:13 pm