In Defense of the History Channel

Brian recently complained (hard to imagine, I know) that the History Channel's 10-part series, "10 Days that Unexpectedly Changed America" is inherently flawed in its premise. After viewing 10 minutes of the Gold Rush episode, he said, "This is more about a time period, not a particular day. Look at 9/11. That was a day that changed everything! This is broader than just one day."

Yes, Brian, you have a point. That episode and all the others do cover more ground than just 1 day. They have to . Each day lives within a context, a time period where things are continually happening. To say that the episodes should focus more on 1 days is like focusing on what paper the Constitution is written on. You can learn a lot, but you'll be missing the bigger picture of what is actually being said.

The series focus on one key moment on a specific day and how the ramifications of that instance cascade into a broader set of cause-and-effect, circumstances that set up one moment then bringing about another, and another, and so on.

The key date in the Gold Rush was the day that a miner actually found gold in California. From that day, the papers got hold of the story and communicated it to the country. The country then proceeded to eat that story up and started a great migration, which led to manifest destiny being achieved. Yes, that one day wasn't so important, but the series of events it set in motion made is one of the "10 Days that Unexpectedly Changed America."

As for 9/11, the History Channel is smart enough not to touch that topic just yet. Besides, there’s no way to know exactly know how it’s changed America for the long term at this point in time.