March 22, 1999
>oys(]
ds par
Battalion
O PINION
Page 7 • Monday, March 22, 1999
agent sa)>i- M
^wilevmon shows reflect
*Zsi?iewer needs, wants
'keteer, the J
fact or fiction
Sunday. H hould television be what
he newspape® Americans w ant to see or
ms not suspect w hat they need to see? View-
loing. Ai‘ rs wants and needs are directly
Steinberg, shifted. Sex, violence and profani-
iper Bowl" e a11 reflections of this reality,
contact hey may not reflect “realistic” re-
1®’ hut rather a warped sense of
here with a v reality that cannot easily be
and never ® assed b y other media.
time B a hio, magazines and books all
Christian
ROBBINS
’ Steinbr ave their P la ce in popular culture, which is the view
f reality presented by mainstream media. However,
■ting comes close to the power of television. There
Ti ongoing debate in America over which shows
e appropriate for television and which shows are
• /• fnacceptable. Many men drool over the voluptuous
I’lay vatch Babes, while women point out that real
■ fromen do not look like these silicone dolls and that
^^■-naked women have no place on television.
BPBased on the popularity of shows like “Matlock,”
^HHends” and “Dawson’s Creek, no one wants to
Mm. ee “ rea ]» rea iity on TV, people want to see “TV” re-
lity. TV reality is filled with gorgeous women, sexy
ren, strange coincidences and happy endings. They
vant crimes that can be solved in one hour by find-
ig ne “missing” piece of evidence, heroes who es-
ape to save the day and couples who meet, fall in
Dve, have sex, and live happily ever after.
'Viewers want gut-busting comedy that exaggerates
to cor
s
ined
mday.
irmer UCLA
Aikman,
at worried,
he’s doner.
said. "HejurftB-ky aspects of reality and violence without victims
tering when eing permanently injured, unless they are villains,
ither people fs'he success of the “Jerry Springer Show” is a
taper said irilie example. Viewers get to see guests get body-
recently app lanimed, pimp-slapped, kicked and spit on while
tbali coachaitSnging crude yet hilarious insults at one another,
oach, also at 'hd flying chairs and audience insults add to the
arano’s partk omedic value. Viewers love violence. World
was unawr Vrfstling Federation and World Championship
reputation. Vristling took the top seven spots in the Nielsen ca-
oixi mend a Nratings.
one of Domir The main question has not been answered: should
Football prevision be what viewers want to see or what view-
town recrui'H ,iee d to see? Television will always reflect the
be News. “lha farils the people as long as money is the primary
ntpmironolw# jrce °f influence for television programming and it
!, vould be. Why is this?
was convict: Television, very simply reflects the wants of the
with mob l)c ewers - T ^ e wants of the viewers reflect their needs.
’ . jggfj pewers need to see violence and sex on TV because
C1 ( ' \R-veatsc is a reflection of reality. Some people have a friend
°' an , . ho was a little over sheltered by their parents and
ktCa-'U. re Qut tQUC j 1 w pj-, reality. The reality of vic
ing
e Nou'S repci e anc j gex Qn ^ saves m any Americas from
ano and c laivete _
players, inclu-.
k Cade McNj
of a coast-KH
i robe by
■as found of
any athlete.
Of course, Jerry Springer may not be the best ex
ample of this need for reality but shows like “ER,”
The Practice,! and the evening news demonstrate ben
eficial TV reality. Viewers want and need comedy.
Over 50 percent of the shows in the Nielsen top 20 are
comedies. After a hard day of work or school, the av
erage Joe deserves to sit and laugh. He needs to laugh
as a release whether he chooses to laugh at a rerun of
“Seinfield” or a chair being hurled at a transvestite on
Jerry. By the same token, Joe deserves to be able to
watch and fantasize about the Baywatch Babes and
Jane should be able to fantasize about meeting and
marrying Tyrese as she watches an MTV special.
Television has become the book of the 20th centu-
ROBERT HYNECEK/Tm: Battalion
ry and when a person does not like a book, she puts
it down. The television makes this easier, if a show is
too funny, or violent or has too much sexual content,
a viewer can simply turn it off.
Christian Robbins is a junior speech
communications major
should not be ignored, revised for patriotism
December 1998,
he Dallas Morning
ews reported the
lift of a controversial
liary to the University
)f Texas at Austin,
journal was writ-
T by a Mexican sol-
etr who fought in the Caleb
r ar for Texas Indepen- MCDANIEL
lence.
■According to the Morning News, the lengthy diary
ia| great historical interest. Contrary to legendary
^ pclounts of Davy Crockett’s heroic fall at the battle
1 rf the Alamo, the journal corroborates numerous
qA documents in reporting the Tennessee volun-
eer did not die in battle. Instead, the diary reported
t"’ te and several other soldiers were captured by the
T Mexican army and executed after the fall of the
Mamo.
8®^ Jrhe 1975 publication of the soldier’s diary, which
8 )(ir |®s so at odds with the mythical image of Davy
lhu ' hockett as a Texan icon and Hollywood hero,
^'7 parked much contention over the authenticity of
he soldier’s version of Crockett’s demise. Some
bought the diary was accurate; others believed it
„ %as a forgery.
Port!'
mu > |i,r
The ensuing debate over the different versions of
Crockett’s fate spotlights the danger of allowing his
tory to be dictated by the loud voices of patriotism
and romance. No matter what the cost may be to
Americans’ sacred images of their nation’s heritage,
modern historians cannot allow the preconceptions
of the present to manipulate our understanding of
the past.
Too often, depictions of American history have
been guided by what Americans want to remember
rather than by what really happened.
These textbooks and others often unabashedly
present American history as a tool for patriotic edu
cation. Rather than merely presenting the facts of
the country’s long past — which has been checkered
with at least as much dishonor as honor — history
books can often devolve into hero worship.
Davy Crockett’s coonskin hat and George Wash
ington’s apple tree eclipse the sorry segments of
America’s past. As a result, the real struggles and
shortcomings of our ancestors are lost in empty leg
ends.
In other words, shoddy scholarship can some
times make history out of histrionics. The difficulty
with such an approach to the past, according to
W.E.B. DuBois, “is that history loses its value as an
incentive and example; it paints perfect men and no
ble nations, but it does not tell the truth.”
Unfortunately, the truth has often been low on
the list of historical priorities. In the process, the un
der-represented peoples and dishonorable practices
of America’s past have been largely excised from the
big picture of where the nation came from.
Texts that tout America as a triumph can un
abashedly stack the deck in favor of the country’s
forefathers. Unfortunately, such hero-making often
pushes minorities to the margins and conveniently
overlooks the flaws of national icons. This kind of
superhero history is neither honest nor helpful.
However, at the same time that such icons need
to be reevaluated, iconoclasts must beware of fash
ioning historical idols of their own. Those who
would revise the unfair presentation of America’s
past as a pageant of white Anglo-Saxon protestants
cannot rewrite history as a pageant of minorities.
While minorities have certainly been unfairly ab
sent in some of our textbooks, it would be equally
unfair to shove marginal minority figures into the
spotlight just for the sake of having a minority repre
sentative at every landmark in American history.
Arthur Schelesinger Jr., in the The Disuniting of
America, wrote, “History as a weapon is an abuse of
history. ”
Neither established majorities nor disenfran
chised minorities can use history as an instrument
to solve political and social problems in the present.
The past must speak for itself.
“The high purpose of history is not the presenta
tion of self nor the vindication of identity,”
Schelesinger said but the recognition of complexity
and the search for knowledge. ”
That “high purpose” is in need of restoration, be
cause it often has been all but lost in the contest be
tween two extremes: a flag-waving history that ex
cludes minorities entirely and a fist-waving history
that includes minorities inaccurately. Both kinds of
history are motivated more by special interest than
by a genuine search for the fact of the matter.
The aim of history is not to push a certain view of
the way things should have been. “Propaganda,” as
defined by historian Nicholas Henshall, “is a genre
historians should study but not write.”
This means documents like the one given to the
University of Texas must be accepted for what they
are instead of resisted for what they are not. History
will only be valuable when it is stripped of all nor
mative evaluations and left in all of its raw power,
truth and consequence.
Caleb McDaniel is a sophomore
history major.
uchanan plays pesky mouse to Republican Party’s poor elephant
Piird
nee upon a time
there was a
great organiza-
fo| that stood for free
nterprise, individual
b|ity and limited gov-
rnment known as the
wxi \iL >e P ublican Party.
- nttl „w The American peo- Brendan
,.,.,21—-"''13 respected and trust- GUY
d this party because
ley knew it would lower taxes, imprison
... ' hr Inals and shoot Communists for them
nc everyone was happy.
die dark times came and a strange
\Phid dangerous force infected this great
My, corrupting it from within and alien-
' Vl ' 1 '.IdwS d from the American people. The
SpnH,;- apie of that force was Patrick Buchanan.
Buchanan, who was not content with
aving ruined the GOP’s chances in the
■2 and 1996 elections, has recently an-
Mnced that he will seek the Republican
residential nomination once again. Short
.pn other Clinton impeachment hearing,
is hard to think of a single thing that
xttoUck fld do more damage to Republicans.
Admittedly, Buchanan has no chance of
actually winning the nomination, but his
corrosive influence will be felt just by his
presence in the race. Buchanan and his
stooges are perfectly willing to publicly
embarrass the GOP by obsessing about is
sues like abortion and gay rights and they
give little concern to how their extremist
views make the entire party look.
Buchanan’s 1992 convention speech, in
which he unleashed rants about homosexu
als, abortions, feminism and personal attacks
on both the Clintons, was a national disgrace;
fortunately the RepubUcan leadership wised
up after that humiliation and did not let
Buchanan speak at the ’96 convention.
His behavior has not significantly im
proved since then and with his colorful
personality and extremists views, he has
the potential through sheer force of per
sonality to dominate any debate between
Republican candidates. The price of
Buchanan’s theatrics is all Republicans will
be viewed as borderline fascists and the
party will lose the election.
Buchanan’s divisive diatribes are al
ready driving important constituencies
away from the Republican Party. A quick
check of the Constitution, specifically the
19th Amendment, would reveal why alien
ating women is not a good idea. Neverthe
less Buchanan still works to require an
anti-abortion stance in both the party plat
form and for any Republican presidential
nominee — despite the fact that in the
1996 campaign, polls showed that six out
of 10 Republican voters were against a
platform plank calling for a constitutional
ban on abortion.
Buchanan’s rhetoric discredits the en
tire pro-life movement and gives the GOP
an unfair reputation for misogyny. Amaz
ingly enough, it is kind of hard to win elec
tions if half the population hates your po
litical party.
But Buchanan is not content with just
turning women away from conservatism,
he also wants to give the entire Hispanic
vote to the Democrats. Buchanan is not
satisfied with merely advocating strict con
trols on immigration and an end to bilin
gual education, he is actually willing to
place the National Guard on our southern
border if nothing else will stop illegal im
migration. This is probably not a platform
that is going to appeal to most Hispanic
voters, being the fastest growing minority
group in this country, might be kind of im
portant in the next century to any party
that wants to win.
Buchanan does not even represent the
core values the Republican Party was
founded on. His economic views are essen
tially populist since he is openly hostile to
large corporations (which should give any
proper Republican an attack of apoplexy)
and opposed to free trade. His views on
abortion and gay rights clearly show he has
no respect for individual liberty.
And while Buchanan tries to sound
conservative and talk about getting gov
ernment out of people’s lives, he is also
calling for all out cultural war with his
claims that, “Divorce, dirty language, adul
tery, blasphemy, euthanasia, abortion,
pornography, homosexuality, cohabitation
and so on were not unknown in 1960. But
today, they permeate our lives.”
To do anything about these things
would require the most intrusive govern
ment in American history, invading all as
pects of people’s personal lives. So
Buchanan is either a hypocrite about want
ing to fight his precious cultural war
(which he has compared to the Cold War
in terms of importance) or he is a hyp
ocrite about wanting to get the govern
ment out of our lives.
Pat Buchanan is nothing more than a
common demagogue. He appeals to emo
tion not reason and his ludicrous posturing
and divisive fear-mongering have all but
crippled the party of Lincoln.
It is time for Republicans to make a
choice. They can either continue to allow
Pat Buchanan to dominate every campaign
season, which means Republicans will
continue to lose every presidential elec
tion, or they can tell Buchanan to go do
immoral things to himself and, freed from
his toxic influence, actually have a chance
of winning a presidential election.
Deep-sixing Buchanan will be hard but
it is necessary if the GOP wants to live
happily ever after.
Brendan Guy is a senior political science
and history major.