The Men Who Built America

Jan 2009
5,841
50
#1
Just saw the first episode of the series by History channel. It is about Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Carnegie, and Ford. Pretty good- anyone else seen it?
 
Jan 2013
316
1
Delaware
#2
Came here just to say that I also recommend the show, there's only 4 episodes in the mini-series but it's very good. It's not your typical documentary, there's commentary and reenactments.
 
Jun 2012
740
8
Stuart
#3
Just saw the first episode of the series by History channel. It is about Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Carnegie, and Ford. Pretty good- anyone else seen it?
No but it should be on Hulu in the near future if it is not already I will look and see.
 
Jul 2009
5,702
420
Opa Locka
#4
Just saw the first episode of the series by History channel. It is about Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Carnegie, and Ford. Pretty good- anyone else seen it?
Aside from Vanderbilt (and probably due to ignorance), all men I despise. I think I'll skip their glorification by the Hitler and UFO Channel.
 
Jan 2013
47
0
#6
The men who built America are the people who were employed an oppressed by those robber-barons. It is a shame that people seem to forget that in America in those days equal rights were denied to women and minorities. How can you glorify the white men who profited from that era?

Hitler and UFO Channel.
Very funny, and apt.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#7
You don't have to agree with the glorification, but it is a good recap of their lives/history. I found the show to be entertaining and informative, not that I necessarily agree with some of the commentary. (and with people like Trump, Jim Cramer, and Jack Welch as commentators, I certainly wasn't a fan of that part anyway) Still, overall, I enjoyed it.
 
Jan 2012
1,975
5
Texas
#8
You don't have to agree with the glorification, but it is a good recap of their lives/history. I found the show to be entertaining and informative, not that I necessarily agree with some of the commentary. (and with people like Trump, Jim Cramer, and Jack Welch as commentators, I certainly wasn't a fan of that part anyway) Still, overall, I enjoyed it.
It seems that the flaws that people have are amplified if they have wealth and fame.

It is very interesting.
 
Jan 2013
47
0
#9
You don't have to agree with the glorification, but it is a good recap of their lives/history. I found the show to be entertaining and informative, not that I necessarily agree with some of the commentary. (and with people like Trump, Jim Cramer, and Jack Welch as commentators, I certainly wasn't a fan of that part anyway) Still, overall, I enjoyed it.
True, it's valuable as history. But I would be more interested in a people's history of that era, than a history strictly from the perspective of the elite. I view that as obscene.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#10
True, it's valuable as history. But I would be more interested in a people's history of that era, than a history strictly from the perspective of the elite. I view that as obscene.
How can you say it is a perspective of the elite when you haven't even seen the show?
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#13
Why would a people's history be titled Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Carnegie, and Ford?
Everything isn't focused on the "people". What is the "people" anyway? Populations have conflicting histories when you scale down to the individual level, even amongst people of the same socioeconomic class.
 
Jan 2012
1,975
5
Texas
#14
Everything isn't focused on the "people". What is the "people" anyway? Populations have conflicting histories when you scale down to the individual level, even amongst people of the same socioeconomic class.
Seems someone is uninformed as to what history is. Without these men, our country would be very different.

It seems like hatred of private wealth.
 
Jan 2013
47
0
#15
Everything isn't focused on the "people". What is the "people" anyway? Populations have conflicting histories when you scale down to the individual level, even amongst people of the same socioeconomic class.
Well you asked how do I know it's about the elite without watching it. The answer is, it's in the title.
 
Jan 2013
47
0
#16
Seems someone is uninformed as to what history is. Without these men, our country would be very different.

It seems like hatred of private wealth.
No, it wouldn't. If there was no Rockefeller, it would have been Smith, or somebody else. The elite write the history, so it creates the illusion that history is somehow just a series of great men. But that's a theory that has been soundly debunked.
 
Jan 2012
1,975
5
Texas
#17
Well you asked how do I know it's about the elite without watching it. The answer is, it's in the title.
The people named in the title are just the corner stones of the discussion. The "elite" always are the focal point of history.

What is wrong with people being "elite" as you say?
 
Jan 2012
1,975
5
Texas
#20
No, it wouldn't. If there was no Rockefeller, it would have been Smith, or somebody else. The elite write the history, so it creates the illusion that history is somehow just a series of great men. But that's a theory that has been soundly debunked.
Not great men, powerful men. It is with power that history is written and changed. How do you know it would be Smith or somebody else? Perhaps if Henry Ford didn't create a car company a worse person would have.

It wasn't the man himself but the effect that the power welded by such a man had on the course of history.

How would you discuss history without discussing powerful people. I get that they were just people just like anybody else. It was not who they were that was of historical importance but what they did.

It seems odd that you think that it is like worshiping of gods just to note that this or that impact on our nation was the result of somebody's action.
 

Similar Discussions