This direct quote from the first episode summarizes this series perfectly. It's an emotional tale of historical trauma that remains today. However, as most emotional stories are, it's only half-true and it should not be mistaken for fact.
As Peck proposes (quite unoriginally), it is true that white societies deemed themselves to be civil while demonizing other cultures as barbaric, while they themselves were engaging in destructive behavior as well. However, instead of leaving it there, he also seems to make the assertion that these various cultures were civil, while only the whites were the barbaric ones. I fail to understand how pointing out one-sided historical revisionism through the use of one-sided historical revisionism is not hypocritical. Furthermore, many quotes are taken out of context but I guess the revisionism part covers that.
Ignoring the racially insensitive connotation of the word "whiteness", which is used many times throughout the documentary, all this series opened my eyes to is how most other documentaries are probably as onesided as this one. Peck also contradicts himself multiple times by simultaneously claiming that this is a story and that what he's saying is fact, while in actuality most of his opinions are conjecture and the facts he proposes mere lies by omission, which would support his claim that this is a story of a single perspective and not much more. In summary, this series is well-made and very convincing on an emotional level, but it would also be one of the least self-aware documentaries I have ever seen and not nearly as clever as it purports to be.
As Peck proposes (quite unoriginally), it is true that white societies deemed themselves to be civil while demonizing other cultures as barbaric, while they themselves were engaging in destructive behavior as well. However, instead of leaving it there, he also seems to make the assertion that these various cultures were civil, while only the whites were the barbaric ones. I fail to understand how pointing out one-sided historical revisionism through the use of one-sided historical revisionism is not hypocritical. Furthermore, many quotes are taken out of context but I guess the revisionism part covers that.
Ignoring the racially insensitive connotation of the word "whiteness", which is used many times throughout the documentary, all this series opened my eyes to is how most other documentaries are probably as onesided as this one. Peck also contradicts himself multiple times by simultaneously claiming that this is a story and that what he's saying is fact, while in actuality most of his opinions are conjecture and the facts he proposes mere lies by omission, which would support his claim that this is a story of a single perspective and not much more. In summary, this series is well-made and very convincing on an emotional level, but it would also be one of the least self-aware documentaries I have ever seen and not nearly as clever as it purports to be.