Andrew Marr graces our screens again bringing his expertise and insight to the subject of world history.
I shan’t watch it as Marr isn’t actually a historian, and isn’t just reading a script produced by historians…it’s all his own work. The fact that Marr had such left wing politics at university that he was called ‘Red Andy’, and that he is a favoured son of the BBC, makes it unlikely that any historical narrative comes untinged without a pinko blush.
Judging by his last efforts in which Darwin was to blame for Hitler and Britain’s war against the Boer’s led directly to the gas chambers for the Jews of Europe might also colour my view of his views.
However not watching the programme does not preclude me from criticising it….as said I think it is pretty certain what Marr’s take will be……you might rightly complain that I am jumping the gun, Red Andy could have changed….more Randy Andy now than Red.
Evidence points to my presumptuous conclusions not being premature nor still born.
The Telegraph gives us a foretaste of what to expect:
‘In his blockbusting new documentary series, Andrew Marr must condense a couple of hundred thousand years of human history into just eight hours of television. How has he done it?’
“This series is Andrew Marr’s History of the World in the sense that I’ve chosen the stories,” he says, “but I am not pretending that I have a unique take on world history.’ (Oh yes you do..ed)
As you would expect, Marr’s skills are journalistic rather than academic, but because the principal challenge of his new series is to condense and collate a dizzying volume of information into a clear, compelling narrative, he could scarcely be better qualified.’
Journalistic rather than academic? Great. And perhaps he should take some advice from his colleague Justin Webb and not take on too much….’The crush of “facts” actually reduces people’s ability to see the other point of view.’
Marr gets in a spoiler before we can claim, as I do, that perhaps he might colour his story with his own personal views……
As he merrily admits: ‘His is not a personal, proselytizing view of history in the style of Kenneth Clark…….’ (Of course not!…ed)
However, he does admit to having ‘an over-arching thesis.’
Which is:
“Clearly the human story is one of acceleration. There has been a Moore curve in terms of the number of people alive on the planet, our technological ability, and our ability to understand ourselves. We have had this extraordinary, explosive growth in our ingenuity.
“But, at the same time, we haven’t had anything like the same advance in political understanding, our ability to control our desires, to act fairly for future generations. We have had political advance. We are less violent than we used to be. But our ability to govern ourselves wisely has not matched our technical development.
“Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, has this great conceit: in the next two generations, he says, mankind will enter the rapids, the white water. These are the dangers of nuclear war, famine, plague, overpopulation and radical discontinuous climate change.
“Either this is the beginning of the story spreading across the cosmos, or it’s the end of everything.”
So the programme is really about the development of radical politics making a fairer world, controlling our desires (consumerism?), climate change and ‘fairness‘ for a future generation……maybe he has had a script after all…..Did Paul Mason write it whilst in his tent at an Occupy rally?
Andrew Marr’s History of the World starts on Sunday on BBC One at 9.00pm
Let me know how he gets on.
I would rather stick pins in my eyes.
Only the BBC could commission a member of its own political staff, and a non-historian, to create a programme about the entire history of the world.
And only a man of immense ego and hubris could think that occasional visits to the library (no doubt to check out Howard Zinn) could equip him for such a task.
I suspect it’ll be yet another finger wagging vanity project from Marr.
Just as long as it’s only his FINGER he wags this time…..
so it looks like a potted history of bbc politics, and their influences …
well at least he ll be alright on the history of anal probing
last attempt, a photo, caught beautifully in the back alley
(how apt), of some sleazy hump hump bar.
or obtaining quick injunctions to prevent publication of ahem! “private” information
Some time ago, I bought ” The Ascent of Man” – Jacob Bronowski and “Civilisation” – (Lord) Kenneth Clark. Even after all these years, they are worth watching for their education and insight. I haven’t seen anything from Mr Marr that can even begin to compete with these works.
A better and wiser BBC would have once commissioned an acknowledged expert to tackle a subject even half so grand.
Now they get part time history buff and full-time ignoramus Andrew Marr.
Perhaps Marr next project should be called The decline and fall of the BBC empire.
The irony is that they are both bbc publications. So, they can’t say they are unable to distinguish between fools gold and the real thing.
Maybe they will ask Chas and Dave to present next years Proms
Glad you liked The Ascent of Man so much. I’ve just finished watching it online. It’s a magnificent series, constituting an education in its own right. Towards the end of the final episode, I found myself shaking my head thinking ‘BBC, where did it go so wrong?’
I still remember reading the book when I was about 11 years old. It stayed with me for years afterwards.
John,
I too bought the Civilisation and Ascent of Man set of DVDs. Despite being decades old, they have not dated. In fact, I appreciate Clarke’s civilisation even more so now, as they are not Politically Correct. PC was unheard of then, and Clarke sets about his subject without being encumbered by even the thought of PC.
BBC’s World civilisation is immediately tainted by the BBC’s PC view. The fact that in the Classical group – Mesopotamian, Greek, Chinese or Indian civilisations, existed at a specific place, time, and for a specific racial group, is anathema to the BBC, as that would imply that specific races had civilisation, and others not.
Thus, the BBC treats Greek civilisation, as part of the whole world, as if the whole world was getting enthused about Socrates and Pythagoras. Civilisations have to be examined and studies as what they were – very specific happening in time and place, and for a specific group of people.
The agenda of the BBC is World government. If one accepts that the final state of the world will be a world government, then the proponents of this new utopia, would see all previous civilisations as leading up to the future utopia, and thus initial steps of world civilisation and government.
The agenda of the totalitarian left has always been world government. In its past attempts to build such an utopia, it resulted in the most horrific deaths of some150 million people. Any one who espouses Marxist ideas, given the calamity they created in the 20th century, should be declared insane and locked up -these people are infinitely more dangerous then psychotics and lunatics.
It sounds like the version of history we got at the Olympic opening ceremony – Eden disturbed by technological change only to be saved by heart of gold Leftists.
The way BBC Leftists always disparage Kenneth Clarke’s 1969 Civilisation series (which sought to educate not proselytize – although controversially in the last few minutes he suggested that on the whole Civilisation is a good thing) speaks volumes about the utter shallowness and bigotry of the Left. No wonder they produce such crapfests as Newnight – an exercise in the suppression of thought by people who count themselves educated if they have read that morning’s Guardian.
Ah! but nowadays you’re not allowed to have an acknowledged expert such as the late Lord Clarke, that might scare people or make the subject ‘inaccessible’; I’m afraid it will only get commissioned if it features a celebrity on a ‘personal journey’
…including the fictitious family background – a wife-beating father, a grandmother who worked 28 hours a day in’t mill, and an ancestor who marched with Wat Tyler.
What is incredible about Kenneth Clark’s Civilisation is that he describes Marxism as a failure in 1969. The BBC has yet to catch up with this fact!
I remember Andrew Marr’s History of Britain where he claimed that there were no homeless before Thatcher came to power. Clearly he was oblivious to – or chose to ignore – Cathy Come Home and the founding of Shelter in the 1960s.
It is scary that this bloke is given airtime by this organisation. My only consolation is that I don’t pay my TV Licence anymore so at least I’m not paying his salary.
Red Andy Marr must have something on somebody to get this brazen commission – what could that be, lads ??
He’s a member of Common Purpose, which *probably* helps people to get on.
Some fun comments, including a few from actual (self-proclaiming) historians. They seem unimpressed.
But my fave so far is this one:
‘Hilarious! Marr is about as small ‘c’ conservative as it gets; the epitome of cosy, uncontroversial BBC journalism.’
Drs. Scezandymanus from Oslo doing a bit a freelance elsewhere after hitting the Sunday sherry?
I’ve seen a clip from it and we all (according to the clip) descend from ONE black (of course) woman ‘we don’t know her name’ Marr bizarrely says!
Classic ‘Out of Africa’ bull – the BBC and Marr conveniently of course ignore the facts that older human remains have been found in both Israel and China.
I won’t watch it but many will – and get brainwashed in the process.
“However not watching the programme does not preclude me from criticising it”
After all why let the facts get in the way?
Well you don’t so why should we ? level playing fields of Eaton and all that luvy!
This blog is far stronger when it fisks output for actual bias, like David’s recent Mardell take-down. Presuming bias in something you haven’t seen is lazy and lacks integrity.
I was watching Doctor who last. Amy pond was her female friends wedding and she said to her ‘I am glad you have made an honest womann of HER’. There is an example of BBC bias to towards LGBT. It is a known fact that an abnormal amount of the BBC’s employees are homosexual, so they promoting their own life style. Doctor Who is well known for putting gay references in that you hardly notice.
This is probably because doctor who is a popular children programme and they want the young people who watch to be pro-homosexual rather than anrti-homosexual.
There was one the previous week as well. The Doctor and ‘Susan’ the horse. I just rolled my eyes. I don’t really care at all, but it does seem a tad egregious.
I presume those homosexuals, Amy pond, the Doctor and Stephen Moffat will be in the lake of eternal fire?
Those homosexuals, amy pond and the doctor won’t because they aren’t real people.
Stephen Moffat will be because he is a real person. If he doesn’t repent and accept Jehovah god and his son our lord and saviour jesus christ and beg for their forgiveness.
Hate to break it to you old chum but Amy Pond is as real as this Jehovah chappie.
Still it will be good having Stephen Moffat with us in the lake, he is a great writer.
Jehovah god is real and do not mock him.
He is terribly insecure, this J. God fellow. Seems to require people constantly to praise him. What is that all about? He must have the mother of all inferiority complexes.
Be fair, Nicked. He initially had an awful lot of competition.
I understand your point, redwhiteandblue, and agree with it generally. In this case, however, the issue is more about how incestuous and arrogant the BBC has become. It can no longer look beyond its own partisan staff to make (what should be) important documentaries, and sees nothing wrong with it.
So Paxman is allowed to opine at length on Empire, Dimbleby on Britain and Marr repeatedly on history, to name but three examples. None of these gentlemen have any depth of knowledge about their subjects and they seem only to be allowed to have made them- at great license payers’ expense- to trot out the tired liberal pieties. Meanwhile Channel 4, which seemed to have assumed the mantle of public service broadcaster, makes serious and watchable documentaries by Starkey and Ferguson.
The BBC of 50 years ago would be astonished by its present conflation of highly selected facts and opinion would be passed off as ‘history’.
But those three are all expert, highly qualified story-tellers. That’s what’s most important, not their personal expertise on the subject matter at hand.
“those three are all expert, highly qualified story-tellers.”
They are experienced television presenters. They are good at reading an autocue. That does not mean they are intelligent. It does not mean they are knowledgeable. Nor does it make them interesting.
The content of the first programme could be reduced into three sentences. We originated in Africa and populated most of the world. We discovered farming and our population increased. The End.
At least when Peter Jay (another BBC Labour Party luvvie) wrote The Road to Riches (an economic history of the world) he not only knew something about the subject, he had something interesting to say about it – he tried to make you think.
What a complete waste of time – who cares if it earns the BBC some money.
It is symptomatic of the complete intellectual bankruptcy of the Left these days. They just want to keep the boat steady while they tax farm the peasants. Not even the hint of a single idea. Not the slightest engagement with reality. Nothing. Just keep on paying your taxes, so Andy Marr (and his sour faced Leftist harpie of a wife) can afford to employ a few more staff at their Tuscan villa.
I’m missing something. What does the photograph of Martin Clunes in the Reginald Perrin role have to do with Andrew Marr?
They took the wrong library pic, it should have been macaulay culkin!
Or Alfred E. Neuman.
Beautiful. His colleagues call him the “gnome” – which he hates – but he looks a lot more the bloke in the “Mad” comics.
watched it….to me it all seemed made up
Marr’s excuse for Gropegate. “We were worn out by months of travel and filming and were just blowing off steam with a few cases of BBC bubbly, and the moment just got to me and my “production colleague”.Andrew, you should have just given her one and saved the licence payers money by not bothering with the series. It is a historical licence too far!
Watched part of it. There was a great deal of emphasis by Marr on the claim that early humans were ‘always moving on’ or they ‘would have starved’, apparently. Anyone would think they crossed the world within a couple of generations! Even the ‘black mother’, mitochondrial Eve, he claimed, ‘moved on’ after leaving Africa, an absolute lie.
Nomads do not normally constantly ‘move on’, they stay within very limited areas and move seasonally along beaten tracks. It took humans millenia to colonise the world, not the seconds that it took Marr to colour in the map. We are not a migratory species, and the current long distance mass movement of people is a new phenomenon made possible by relative wealth and technology.
The same message (people have always migrated) was implied by the Vikings, earlier this evening, keen to emphasise Viking trade links with the Middle East, Samarkand etc, again no mention of the fact that while Viking traders and raiders went out to other parts of the world, they still remained based in their own northern lands which they protected.
It was indeed total tosh. You’re wrong about the Vikings, though – they often set up permanent communities and merged with local populations, eg in Kievan Rus. They really were the paradigm of high achieving immigrants. I don’t want this parallel rammed down my throat by a liberal while watching telly, mind.
Also much emphasis on how they helped each other, with emotive shots of African returning to help stranded child on a perilous rock bridge – er what was the point of that if not pure propaganda?
Mind you Marr does lack the intelligence gene LOL! He agreed to be tested on the Darwin programme for a gene which contributes to intelligence which is found only in ‘out of africa’ races, and was found to be lacking:
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=765398&d=10899.22802&nmt=
It sounded like it had been made for the American market: e.g. he said the earliest farmers planted seeds in ‘the dirt’ and grew ‘wheat, rice and corn’ whereas an Englishman would have said earth or soil, not dirt, and maize not corn.
Perhaps, given that many Murcans can’t even place their own country on a world map, they might accept Marr’s view of world history.
What a pity. To think that we might have had high hopes for Marr’s
‘Stories we think we know….the stories we don’t know……’
Shush, don’t make that cheap shot about the BBC afterwork pary….or the super injunction story. Although perhaps Jeremy Kyle ought to have been given the commission – at least he would have got the DNA results right.
Having sat through episode one of Red Andy’s extended lecture on communism – sorry – History of the World – my first reaction was to the odd editing style.
False endings, strange intermittent recaps. But of course I soon realise it is readily sliceable into alternative lumps because it was made for export . So pleased that my licence fee is helping to line Red Andy’s pockets via overseas sales kickbacks.
I say that I feared an extended lecture on communism but in fact it was nothing so advanced. It was more a loosely strung collection of little socialistic homilies.
Enacted by an ethnically mixed cast of what looked very much akin to a Hackney-based radical theatre group.
It had everything from African earth mother, to sage old Chinaman to the very woman who discovered agriculture. A low point was the ancient Egyptian incontinent, cheating, theiving man judged by his village to be in dire need of radical reeducation back into societal norms with the lash of the whip.
I understand Marr wrote this tosh and although I shouldn’t read too much into his dumbed down little playlets I do now wonder whether this little scene perhaps owes a little to his personal mission of self-discovery?
Naturally we gots lots of Egyptian temples ‘built on the backs of the workers’ and a reference to ancient Mesopotamian ‘Anarchism’. Marr gloats that it never worked – but lasted thousands of years.
Things can only get worse.
The problem here is that Marr is a journalist whereas, in comparison, Clark and Bronowski were experts in the fields on which they made their programmes. I’m not knocking Marr’s ability to front crapola like the Andrew Marr Show. If that’s the mirror members of the political class wish to look at who am I to say they shouldn’t.
Unfortunately for the creation of serious programming, most journalists (and Marr is typical) have butterfly minds. This is not a criticism as such but an indication that neither Marr nor any journalist is probably the right person to give a learned and considered survey of world history. After all, even in his journalism, Marr’s speciality is politics. This might give him an insight into politics through the ages but “politics” as I understand it and on which Marr might have the required expertise, only came into existence in ancient Athens. As it happens, outside Europe (and its descendant nations) “politics” as an exercise in civil discourse wasn’t practised until very recently and, even then, it’s a stretch to consider what happens, for instance, on the African continent anywhere as “politics”: it’s more like civil war sometimes conducted without weapons.
So the BBC selects one of its own with limited knowledge of his own to lecture the masses on a subject which is both fascinating and important. I predict with a fairly high level of confidence (on evidence of both the first episode of the series and Marr’s political beliefs) that the Marr interpretation of History will exaggerate both the contribution of non-Europeans to civilisation and the destructive (and racist of course) habits of those who ended up as Northern Europeans.
Marr’s survey of the last 70,000 years will be the equivalent of those publications sold when I was a child which were illustrated comics of the “Classics” including Shakespeare: interesting for a child in that you got an idea of the plot and the famous bits (eg Hamlet’s soliloquy). Unfortunately for the readers of these publications, the reality lay in the theatre where the whole play – including the “dull” bits – was available: it was only when you saw the whole thing played out in front of you that you realised what a travesty the comics conveyed. In the same way, and if my predictions are correct, Marr’s “history” will also be a travesty since it will be skewed through the BBC-polished lens of the metro-lefty political class.
It is significant that in his example of early art he did not select one of the masterpieces of cave art but hand prints that could have been made by a 5 year old.
The fact that humans migrated around the world is not the most important fact about early humans.
What makes us distinctive is our highest achievements – something which conflicts with Marr’s egalitarian agenda.
It was not the fact that we swarmed that is the most important fact about us, but the fact that concentrations of population helped to create the conditions in which great achievements in poetry, law, art, and science, and so forth, could be made.
An argument between people in an Egyptian village is indistinguishable from an argument anywhere in the world at any time. What his egalitarianism ignores is that what is interesting about Egypt (or Mesopotamia et al) is what they did differently, what they changed, and passed on, creating the human.
Oh goody, more frantic historical revisionism. Can’t wait to be told our seafarers achieved nothing but the invention of the slave trade. Or that all children had free nursery vouchers untill the Industrial Revolution forced them all up chimneys. .