[djjeffhall]

DA Doser - Yes, the parts about Mexican American was filmed after the original was completed and edited in afterwards due tothe protests. I don't recall all the details about how footage was cut in, or how many interviews, but NPR ran a couple of stories on it last week. They probably have it archived, I think the story ran on Day to Day, but don't hold me to that.

[DADoser]

Originally Posted by Hoverbug

It was quite obviously tacked on after the fact. Having said that, I thought that part was better than most of the original production.

The Bataan Death March was well done, but most everything else has been done before, and sometimes better. Anytime he goes beyond the individual stories into general history, it seems to fall short of World at War or Victory at Sea. I know that it's not his intent to do a general history, but my take is that The War is no The Civil War. I'm hoping that once his "characters" move more to the forefront, it will be a bit more engaging, but not mentioning Coral Sea or the Doolittle Raid and not even noting the strategic significance of Pearl Harbor and Midway a'la carriers in a 2.5 hour program devoted to America's first year at war strikes me as a bit off the mark. I also didn't like the teen-age girl from Mobile being the primary reference for the strategic implications of the Pacific War. Sure, he can't cover everything, but if you go by how he weights things, Guadalcanal was more than ten times more important than Midway (going by the time he devoted to the topics).

I saw a couple interviews with Burns last week. And he stated he was really trying to do a "personal history" and tell individual stories with this documentary (and as has been previously mentioned) before and "because" the WWII generation is dying - he quoted a statistic of 1,000 per ??? day/month?? (not sure if that was regarding veterans or general population that lived through "The War"). He wanted to do something before the WWII generation was gone.

He also said he did NOT want to do a documentary focused on dates/Nazis/etc. - i.e. "Victory at Sea", etc. He wanted to tell personal histories vs. focusing on Battles/Weapons/Champaigns/strategies/tactics.

[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by timbo

There was a local interview with Ken Burns on PBS here after the episode, and a few of the tings that he said were scary. One of the things that he said had made him visit this subject was that a hight proportion of current graduating high school students thought that the US had fought with Germany against the Soviet union. If true that is scary.

I know for a fact that my kids no very little about it than I did at that age. It's even more distant for them than it was for me. Growing up I had plenty of old soldiers round that has experienced this, and it had only stopped 30 years ago. Now that's 60 years and these guys will very soon not be here. I think it's very hard for them to relate to something like this when it happened a lifetime away.

The other thing he completely slagged off (and I agree with him) was the current cult fascination that the History Channel and books have with everything Nazi.

My 7 yr old knows who fought who in WW2 (major players atleast) and has better vehicle, weapon, aircraft ID skills than those on the History / Military Channel do.

[timbo]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

My 7 yr old knows who fought who in WW2 (major players atleast) and has better vehicle, weapon, aircraft ID skills than those on the History / Military Channel do.

Good for him, but in my experience he is probably the exception rather than the rule. Where I built model kits, read WWII comics + stories and re-enacted the major WWII campaigns in my back yard, my kids are more interested in Star wars, playing computer games and fantasy rather than history. Unfortunately I think to a certain extent it's a sign of the times. These events are just too distant for them to comprehend. There is no one surviving in my family who fought, and only my wife's uncle on her side. Also museums don't have the instamatic thrill factor that they have come to expect from amusement parks and other forms of entertainment.

[Shawn 507]

Perhaps, but drive by a tank he hasn't seen before and he gets as excited as a kid with a bag full of pixie sticks. He knows which wars his great grandfathers served in, his grandfather ( my dad ) and I have. And he is very aware of the current goings on overseas. He is the exception, but atleast there is hope.

[DADoser]

Originally Posted by Epapazian

Regarding our high schoolers' knowledge of history, it's not confined to HS. About twenty years ago I quizzed my younger brother--a recent college grad--- about who we fought in WWII. His answer, which was sort of a guess, was Russia and China. No wonder so many of our younger "leaders" are clueless. Look at the great educations they received at our institutions of higher learning. Oh no! I hope I haven't stirred up another "does the UK need super carriers"-style debate.

I'll comment on the education issue here.

Lets' be honest. American Culture/Society does not value History. We value "the future" (future orientation) so much that most times we don't even live in "the present." (Always looking forward to how it will be "better" tomorrow than today.) We also disregard, or even devalue the past. [If we valued history/past performance, we would have/vote for much different candidates from BOTH political parties. Past experience/history/facts vs. "futuristic"/false rhetoric.]

(Witness the lessons "learned" in past insurgent wars/warfare and devalued by presidential administrations - Johnson (Philipines/Vietnam); Bush/Cheney (Vietnam/Gulf War I /Iraq.
[That's not even an argument against "What" those administrations did - but one, of neither, applying lessons of the past to their political/policy decisions.]

As an "educator"/History Teacher - high school and college:
I find that SERIOUS educators value History - the problem is: "How do you teach (or "instill") that value in an American culture that devalues/ignores the past?"

(Most) High school students are required to take U.S. History (typically their Jr. year.). Most colleges/universities DO NOT require a U.S. History class in order to graduate. The university that I'm currenty at does require ALL students to take a "Historical Awareness" class (3 credits) - This could be anything from "Jazz in America" to "Construction and Culture" etc.

[ Additionally - one problem with higher education today is the perception that it is "job training" in order to better oneself economically - which it is, to a degree - vs. the idea that higher education is supposed to produce a well-educated individual. We could get into a whole other discussion about the the changing roles/perception of higher education and socio-economic class in America. But that could be book length.....and probably VERY boring to most.]

My point would be that is is unfair to blame Colleges for "historically ignorant" graduates when the devaluation of the past is a larger cultural/societal issue in the U.S.

Here is a sad example that illustrates the point Epapazian brings up:
In the early '90's I was teaching World History at a large High School in Phoenix, AZ. One of my friends who taught American History actually had a refugee fresh from Croatia who was tutoring American students in U.S. History!! My experience with most exchange students (especially Europeans) is that they know U.S. History better than the majority of their American peers.

Take care,

[Epapazian]

Following up on DADoser's comments, which I agree with, most people would kill if they could predict the future. Yet past experience is probably the best predictor of future events. To bad that so few of us, and particularly our leaders, fail to understand this simple point.

[TopHat]

Originally Posted by Epapazian

Following up on DADoser's comments, which I agree with, most people would kill if they could predict the future. Yet past experience is probably the best predictor of future events. To bad that so few of us, and particularly our leaders, fail to understand this simple point.

With all of the revisionist history the liberal/PC crowd loves, is it any wonder the kids today don't know US history? A prime example is that goon who used to be the head honcho at the Smithsonian Air & Space, the one who actually designed an exhibit which blamed the US for starting WWII (at least in the PTO). I mean really.....

[Cavtanker]

I agree with many of the comments above. How will knowing history help a current graduate earn $$$? Unless it is a career in history education, probably not very much.

I know my family's military history. I hope one day my children are infected with a love of military history.

[TopHat]

Knowledge is power, young man.....