A review of Henry Louis Gates, Jr.'s “Africa's Great Civilizations” (PBS)

“The High Contracting Parties do by the present Charter establish an Organization to be known as the ORGANIZATION OF AFRICAN UNITY. The Organization shall include the Continental African States, Madagascar and other Islands surrounding Africa.”

– Charter of the “Organization of African Unity” (predecessor of the current African Union), 25 May 1963

Before watching this series, I knew next to nothing about the history of Africa – I admit it freely. The only part of this continent's history that I really knew much of anything about was Ancient Egypt, and then only in that period through the Roman conquests. This documentary did not neglect Ancient Egypt, as it turned out, but this was far from being its only focus. It tried to cover all of the written history of the entire continent, which is a truly ambitious scope for a documentary of any length. They did not cover everything, of course, nor could they have done so in the mere six episodes that they had here. But they were actually able to cover quite a bit in their limited running time, and I thus marvel that they were able to do so much.

A review of “Queen Victoria's Empire” (PBS Empires)

“ ♪ Rule, Britannia!
Britannia, rule the waves.
And Britons never, never, never shall be slaves. ♪ ”

– “Rule, Britannia!” (1740), a British patriotic song written decades before Queen Victoria was born

At the height of the British Empire, it was the largest empire in the history of the world. Its geography was so widespread that people often commented that the sun “never set” on its borders. Actually, it is not the only empire in history to be described in this way, but it may still be the most prominent of them. The British Empire actually predates Queen Victoria's reign by some centuries, with its “first empire” going from 1583 to 1783 (the year that they lost America). The “second empire” went from 1783 to 1815, the year that the Napoleonic Wars ended. But a number of historians believe that Britain's “imperial century” was from 1815 to 1914, the year that World War One began. Queen Victoria reigned for more than half of this latter period, as it turns out, and was alive for an even larger share of it – part of which was before she assumed the throne in 1837. Thus, historians sometimes refer to this empire as “Queen Victoria's” empire, and to this era of British history as the “Victorian era.”

A review of PBS's “Catherine the Great”

Warning: This post contains some mature themes in it. Although I have tried to cover them tastefully, there's no way to take them out – they are too prominent in this story.

Catherine the Great

Before I watched this documentary, I had seen parts of the 1995 television movie “Catherine the Great,” starring Catherine Zeta-Jones in the title role. I fast-forwarded through certain bedroom scenes, but this film did have a good dose of politics and intrigue as well. Indeed, this aspect of the story was the part that I most wanted to learn about. This is part of why I wanted to see this other film in the first place, in fact. This PBS documentary (starting Emily Bruni) turned out to be as good as expected, but it also had many surprises for me.

How is Catherine's personal life connected with her political life?

Because of my prior experience with the Catherine Zeta-Jones movie, I was not too surprised to learn that Catherine was somewhat loose in her personal life. But the degree to which her life was a soap opera was something that I did not expect. Indeed, one cannot leave it out of the story, even if politics and intrigue are the primary focus. Her personal life is a part of the political story; and is almost inseparable from it. Thus, a few comments about Catherine's personal life may be warranted here, to help explain why it played such a prominent role in her life. This will also help to shed some light on what kind of film this is.

The future Catherine the Great, in an equestrian portrait

A review of “Egypt's Golden Empire” (PBS Empires)

The Egyptian language might have been the first language in human history to have been written down. (Although some scholars have argued that Sumerian was actually the first, and that Egyptian was only the second.) Regardless of whether it was first or second, though, the earliest known records of the Egyptian language actually go back to two or three thousand years before Jesus Christ. But unexpectedly, that is not where this documentary begins its history. This is actually a history of the “New Kingdom” in Egypt, which goes from about 1500 BC to 1000 BC – long after the earliest known records in Egypt. I would presume that PBS wanted to focus on a narrower period of Egyptian history (only five centuries or so), to allow for a simpler story. With less than three hours to tell the story here, you can see why PBS would want to do this. But one can only speculate as to why they decided to focus specifically on the “New Kingdom,” rather than on some other period of a similar duration. There are a number of other periods that would have made for equally interesting television, I think; and if someone decided to cover one of them, I would probably view their coverage with more than a little interest.

A review of “Peter & Paul and the Christian Revolution” (PBS Empires)

“Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Cæsar.”

– The New Testament, “The Acts of the Apostles,” Chapter 26, Verse 32 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

This documentary gets some things right, and some things wrong. It's not exactly a hatchet job on the Christian religion, but one gets the impression that it's made by nonbelievers, and that its opinion of Christianity is somewhat lukewarm at best.

A review of “Rebels & Redcoats: How Britain Lost America”

“... That the said colonies and plantations in America have been, are, and of right ought to be, subordinate unto, and dependent upon the imperial crown and parliament of Great Britain; and that the King's majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons of Great Britain, in parliament assembled, had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever … ”

– American Colonies Act 1766 (better known as the “Declaratory Act”), as passed by the Parliament of Great Britain

A British view of the American Revolution, which is somewhat different from our own ...

This documentary has much to admire, and much to disagree with. Its opening credits advertise it as “A British View,” and this title is certainly accurate. I picked it up hoping to hear the other side of this war, and I was not disappointed. However, it also has some weaknesses which I will note here. To be fair, it is actually fairly balanced regarding the military campaigns, but it is also somewhat less than balanced regarding some of the politics of this war. The British filmmaker Richard Holmes is a genuine military historian, and has a deep knowledge of military strategy and tactics. He has a gift for bringing the human drama of these campaigns to life. He has the ability to make you sympathize with both sides to some degree. But when it comes to the political issues of this war (and there are quite a few of them), he shows that he is not very well-versed in the politics of the Revolution. He compares people like Samuel Adams to Marx and Lenin, and it is clear that this comparison is meant to be unflattering (and not a comparison that is meant to be complimentary, as it might be if spoken by someone else).

Giving Congress the power to coin money was a break with British precedents

“The coining of money is in all states the act of the sovereign power; for the reason just mentioned, that it's value may be known on inspection.”

– William Blackstone's “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1765), Book 1, Chapter 7

You might expect that in the Founding Fathers' time, the British Constitution would place the power of coining money into the Parliament. If so, you'd be wrong – in their time, it was the British monarchy that had this power, and the related power to regulate “weights and measures” as well. By contrast, the Constitution of the United States said that the Congress shall have the power to “coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures” (Source: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 5). The Constitution thus vests these powers in the legislative branch, rather than the executive branch. This was a major break with British tradition.

To illustrate this, I will quote from a source that was used by a number of our Founding Fathers. This source is William Blackstone's “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (better known as Blackstone's “Commentaries”), which was used specifically by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. (All quotations from Blackstone's “Commentaries” in this particular post are from Book 1, Chapter 7, so I will not note this every time.) Everything in the first volume, including this chapter, was written in 1765.

Sir William Blackstone