J’ai regardé ces épisodes et, à l’instar des autres critiques, j’ai été scandalisé par le résultat. Les séries télévisées historiques ne font jamais l’unanimité, mais celle-ci donne l’étrange impression d’avoir été faite pour diviser. Et pour fausser la vérité.
[I watched these episodes and like other critics, I was shocked. Televised history series never please everyone, but this one gives the strange impression of having been made to cause division. And to falsify the truth.]I haven't got myself to watch "Story of Us" yet, but I'm not sure all of Girard's criticisms are soundly based. He picks up on a complaint that early Acadian settlement is neglected, but a TV show is not a textbook or an encyclopedia. It is going to leave a lot out, and the selection needs to be judged on balance. And he's pretty exclusive about who can film history.
On ne badine pas avec l’histoire. C’est sérieux, l’histoire.... Quand je dis que l’histoire est sérieuse, cela veut aussi dire qu’il faut laisser l’histoire aux historiens.
[You don't mess around with history. History is serious, When I say history is serious, that also means you have to leave history to historians.]Leaving most of the commentary on "Story of Us" to popstars and celebrities is a bit wierd, I agree. But "22 Minutes" messed around with history big time the other night in a Canada150 special (just a clip or two online so far). They are not historians. As far as I'm concerned they can mess around with history anytime.
But the doubts are not all francophone, for sure. Douglas Hunter:
This may surprise the CBC, but we have actual fur-trade historians who can say amazing and informed things about people in the fur trade. https://t.co/obTk0oXo5t— Dr. Doug (@DWHauthor) April 6, 2017
