For those like myself who are interested in history but hate all that tedious reading, The History Channel is a great resource. As the philosopher George Santayana once said, “Those who cannot learn from The History Channel are doomed to rerun it.”
However, during my four years at Northwestern, I’ve noticed a disturbing History Channel trend. Illuminating historical documentaries have been replaced by shows about ice road truckers, “ax-men” and why it’s “tougher in Alaska.” Watching people chop down trees and drive trucks across frozen roads certainly has its entertainment value, but it doesn’t seem that historical. If the trend continues, I won’t be surprised if The History Channel gets renamed The Present Channel.
Unfortunately, the line between history and present isn’t always well-defined – just look at “Modern Marvels,” a program that views modern conveniences through a historical framework. Therefore, if we’re ever going to get The History Channel back on the right track, the first thing we’ll have to do is figure out what the hell it means for something to considered a part of history.
Let’s start by consulting the experts. The Oxford Historical Society defines history as “The study of everything that happened before right now. Now. Now. Nownownownownow.”
It might be a suitable definition to use in academic circles, but when we apply it to The History Channel, we only run into more problems. It means that shows like “Ice Road Truckers” are technically historical, but so is everything else, regardless of the network. Even live broadcasts could be considered part of history, so long as there’s a five-second tape delay. It also means that history majors would be forced to study the totality of existence, and I doubt they’d appreciate that.
What’s interesting about “Tougher in Alaska,” “Ax-Men” and “Ice Road Truckers” is that they all take place in Alaska. Well, “Ax-Men” is filmed in the Pacific Northwest, but that’s, you know…Alaska-ish. So maybe The History Channel doesn’t have a problem after all if we’re willing to accept that Alaska is an example of “living history.” It sounds strange, but allow me to explain.
There are many things about Alaska that make it seem like a holdover from the pioneer days – things like large expanses of pristine land, untapped natural resources, and Native Americans that haven’t been exterminated. It also lacks the diversity that results from decades of multicultural migration. According to the 2000 census, Alaska’s three main demographics are “Gold prospectors,” “Radical gun-toting libertarians” and “Moderate gun-toting libertarians.” It’s also considerably behind the curve when it comes to technology – especially naming technology (“Trig,” “Track” and “Trip” are all common Alaskan names.) On top of all that, don’t forget that the state is so slow that it didn’t enter the union until 1950.
If you’re an Alaska native, I apologize for offending you. Then again, if that’s the case, you probably don’t have electricity or indoor plumbing, so I guess I don’t have to worry.
