Rewriting American History

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

bobevenson
Posts: 7349
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Rewriting American History

Post by bobevenson »

Rewriting American History
Image
Walter Williams
By Walter Williams
Published June 14, 2017

George Orwell said, "The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history."

In the former USSR, censorship, rewriting of history and eliminating undesirable people became part of Soviets' effort to ensure that the correct ideological and political spin was put on their history.

Deviation from official propaganda was punished by confinement in labor camps and execution.

Today there are efforts to rewrite history in the U.S., albeit the punishment is not so draconian as that in the Soviet Union.

New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu had a Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee monument removed last month.

Former Memphis Mayor A C Wharton wanted the statue of Confederate Lt. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, as well as the graves of Forrest and his wife, removed from the city park.

In Richmond, Virginia, there have been calls for the removal of the Monument Avenue statues of Confederate President Jefferson Davis and Gens. Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and J.E.B. Stuart.

It's not only Confederate statues that have come under attack. Just by having the name of a Confederate, such as J.E.B. Stuart High School in Falls Church, Virginia, brings up calls for a name change. These history rewriters have enjoyed nearly total success in getting the Confederate flag removed from state capitol grounds and other public places.

Slavery is an undeniable fact of our history. The costly war fought to end it is also a part of the nation's history. Neither will go away through cultural cleansing.

Removing statues of Confederates and renaming buildings are just a small part of the true agenda of America's leftists. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and there's a monument that bears his name — the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C.

George Washington also owned slaves, and there's a monument to him, as well — the Washington Monument in Washington.

Will the people who call for removal of statues in New Orleans and Richmond also call for the removal of the Washington, D.C., monuments honoring slaveholders Jefferson and Washington?

Will the people demanding a change in the name of J.E.B. Stuart High School also demand that the name of the nation's capital be changed?

These leftists might demand that the name of my place of work — George Mason University — be changed. Even though Mason was the author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which became a part of our Constitution's Bill of Rights, he owned slaves. Not too far from my university is James Madison University. Will its name be changed? Even though Madison is hailed as the "Father of the Constitution," he did own slaves.

Rewriting American history is going to be challenging. Just imagine the task of purifying the nation's currency. Slave owner George Washington's picture graces the $1 bill. Slave owner Thomas Jefferson's picture is on the $2 bill. Slave-owning Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant's picture is on our $50 bill. Benjamin Franklin's picture is on the $100 bill.

The challenges of rewriting American history are endless, going beyond relatively trivial challenges such as finding new pictures for our currency. At least half of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were slave owners. Also consider that roughly half of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia were slave owners. Do those facts invalidate the U.S. Constitution, and would the history rewriters want us to convene a new convention to purge and purify our Constitution?

The job of tyrants and busybodies is never done. When they accomplish one goal, they move their agenda to something else. If we Americans give them an inch, they'll take a yard. So I say, don't give them an inch in the first place. The hate-America types use every tool at their disposal to achieve their agenda of discrediting and demeaning our history. Our history of slavery is simply a convenient tool to further their cause.

Dr. Walter Williams is an American economist, commentator, and academic. He is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, as well as a syndicated columnist and author known for his libertarian views.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Rewriting American History

Post by Science Fan »

The word hypocrisy comes to mind. Since when have American history books used in schools ever told the actual truth of American history? Since when has the history books used by any nation's school system ever accurately told the truth about that nation's history? Never.
bobevenson
Posts: 7349
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Rewriting American History

Post by bobevenson »

That's due to government control and support of education.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Rewriting American History

Post by Science Fan »

Private schools also lie about history, as do such people as Austrian economists, and libertarians, who claim to be independent of the government. Lying about history is rampant.
bobevenson
Posts: 7349
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Rewriting American History

Post by bobevenson »

Science Fan wrote: Thu Jun 15, 2017 5:10 pm Private schools also lie about history, as do such people as Austrian economists, and libertarians, who claim to be independent of the government. Lying about history is rampant.
Please, in a free society, lies are exposed, so look to your own despotic government, pal.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Rewriting American History

Post by Science Fan »

Your lies are certainly exposed. Look at the lie contained in your opening post? By asking that confederate monuments not be displayed, no one is rewriting history. That's a lie. What people are doing is rejecting racism. A monument honors certain aspects of history, and reflects modern support for past historical ideas --- in the case of these monuments, the endorsement is of black slavery and this does reflect a racist position against blacks. You are simply attacking those who are attacking racism. The Confederacy also sought to reunite with England, and turn back the victory of the war of independence, so this is another reason to take down the monuments, unless you believe that the USA should have gone back to being a colony of England, as the Confederates desired?

In any event, this is not a rewriting of history in any manner, shape or form.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Rewriting American History

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Who are these titans of moral perfection and righteousness who want to bleach and sanitise history? Why are they stopping with those few? They should be demanding the removal of all trace of pretty much every President you've ever had (except the ones that no one has heard of) if they are genuinely concerned about monuments to arseholes. I think Washington had slaves. Most of the 20th Century onwards ones have been psychopathic mass murderers. Bush beady-eyes has wrecked the entire planet.....
The world is full of monuments to kunts. I would rather that than have the bleaching, sanitising crusaders of moral righteousness and all that is good and Politically Correct continue to get their way with their bullying thought-policing.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: Rewriting American History

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Science Fan wrote:Your lies are certainly exposed. Look at the lie contained in your opening post? By asking that confederate monuments not be displayed, no one is rewriting history. That's a lie. What people are doing is rejecting racism. A monument honors certain aspects of history, and reflects modern support for past historical ideas --- in the case of these monuments, the endorsement is of black slavery and this does reflect a racist position against blacks. You are simply attacking those who are attacking racism. The Confederacy also sought to reunite with England, and turn back the victory of the war of independence, so this is another reason to take down the monuments, unless you believe that the USA should have gone back to being a colony of England, as the Confederates desired? In any event, this is not a rewriting of history in any manner, shape or form.
It is true that removing an unwanted monument is differet from purposively rewriting historical chronicles, that much is obvious. But I would suggest that the removal of monuments of that sort may involve a somewhat opposite intention, and that intention is to limit the possibility of appreciation of the Southern culture, the Southern culture as one of the original cradles of the American Republic for example, the Southern traditions generally, and the simple identification of white Southerners (and some Black ones too who do not desire the monuments to be removed) with their own traditions, history, and more.

Therefor, an excision of a momument of that sort, while not a formal rewrite of history, may likely be part of a general process to eliminate the telling and the rembrance of history which one faction does not desire to be known or remembered, nor appreciated and to live on in time. In this sense then the removal of the monuments may contribute to the establishment of 'favored histories' or histories which disfavor a positive view of the South. It can therefor be described as an attempt at 'narrative sanitation' and could amount to another level of the insertion of politically correct narratives.

To say that removing the monuments is a statement 'rejecting racism' is, of course, true in a sense, yet it is true in a slanted sense, a complex sense, or in a nuanced sense that is not simple but is really more complex than allowed. To succeed in removing such monuments is an act of expression of power, it is a statement. It probably is a statement about and against 'racism' but then it probably also has other levels in it as well. Yet it is an act of power, or a manifestation of power --- again and to repeat --- against a sector of the South by another sector of the South.

It seems that it should be immediately understandable to all parties and to any on-looker that it is an 'act of aggression' against what are likely symbols of identification. But not necessarily either of slavery specifically and nor can one of these monuments be said to be a Monument to Racism. (Yet I will imagine that hot-heads SJWs of various stripes do see it like that, and I think you, Science Fan, clearly see it in this way). The real point is that someone wants to eliminate something of historical importance and relevance to another/others. These efforts are opposed, naturally, and one side vilifies the other for their desire to keep their monuments. It is made into an ethical evil to desire that monuments to (your) history remain even if they are not to the liking of some others.

How does one sum-up what is really going on here?
...the endorsement is of black slavery and this does reflect a racist position against blacks...
That is a false and also a misleading statement. It is made because of a too-simple and binary mode of perception. It is an attemot to reduce complex events, and complex history, to a simple narrative which is comparable to establishing a false-predicate and then building one's case on it. It has truthful elements though: the slavery of Blacks is part of the history of the South, and 'racism' was certainly defined in the South as it was in the North and the world-over. Yet to say that the monuments stand as 'endorsements' of slavery is a misleading statement. Many Southerners who appreciate their history, their heroes, their traditions, and many other things also regard slavery as a very real evil. And many pro-South Sotherners have also been vocal opponents of holding to racism, or of discrimination and of bigotry generally.

Therefor, and based on the above, I wish to suggest that Science Fan demonstrates a much more subtle and I will say *dangerous* form of employing falsehood, distortion and mis-truth in his argument. If such a way of seeing becomes common and general I suggest that there is a significant danger in it. It is not exactly and precisely a 'lie' but because it is borne of bad perceptual and descriptive method it can lead to bad results.
bobevenson
Posts: 7349
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Rewriting American History

Post by bobevenson »

As Walter Williams asked, do the people who want to take down all those monuments also want to take down the Washington Monument and remove Washington's picture from the dollar bill simply because he was a slave owner?
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: Rewriting American History

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

VegeTaxidermy wrote:Who are these titans of moral perfection and righteousness who want to bleach and sanitise history? Why are they stopping with those few? They should be demanding the removal of all trace of pretty much every President you've ever had (except the ones that no one has heard of) if they are genuinely concerned about monuments to arseholes. I think Washington had slaves. Most of the 20th Century onwards ones have been psychopathic mass murderers. Bush beady-eyes has wrecked the entire planet.....
The answer to your question is: The Titans of Moral Perfection. That's who!

Those monuments are, of course, just a beginning. They are 'push-overs' as it were. Once the long march is begun it tends to gather strength and momentum. The same general tendency (intent) was thoroughly manifest during the French Revolution and, now, one notices a similar self-certainty in decisiveness. Thus the Moral Titans do not need detailed reasons and reasonings, they only require a sort of emotional assent. If it feels right (righteous) do it!

E. Michael Jones has an interesting perspective on Bush & Co. and Neo-Conservatism generally. He sees it as a manifestation of a radical Trotskyism. They disturb, wreak havoc ... bring chaos ... because they seem to figure they can benefit from it in the long run. I think you are very right to point out that these are destructive men and part of destructive activities.

Washington, our first president (and a valient patriot and excellent general) was in today's terms a multi-billionaire. It is important to point this out but not exactly for the reasons you might suppose. He simply was an exceedingly wealthy man and, yes, he owned slaves (by inheritance). But in his will he freed them but, as I remember, his still living wife kept them and many remained part of the estate.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Rewriting American History

Post by Science Fan »

Gustav: I refuse to respond to your comment, as you have shown yourself to be a science-denier, a history-denier, and basically, a person who substitutes conspiracy theories and bigotry for the most basic of facts. Since you have continued to address comments to me, and I don't have any desire to see any of your comments ever again, I shall now place you on the "foe" list along with two others, a user named veg something and another named herbal, I think, so that your comments shall never appear to me in the future.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Rewriting American History

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

His loss, but suits me just fine. Although I don't believe for a second that every single word of every comment I make is not being read avidly.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: Rewriting American History

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Science Fan wrote:I shall now place you on the "foe" list along with two others, a user named veg something and another named herbal...
It was a good comment though ... I mean you've got to admit ...

It just seems silly to me. The purpose of coming into a space like this is to encounter opposition. What is the sense of putting on blinkers? Soon you will have everyone on 'foe' and then what? ;-P

Just FYI: I will make especial efforts to comment on your posts because your perspective is so adamantine and yet also so reductionist. You deserve comment.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9560
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Rewriting American History

Post by Harbal »

Science Fan wrote: Thu Jun 15, 2017 10:30 pm I shall now place you on the "foe" list along with two others, a user named veg something and another named herbal,
:cry:
wtf
Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: Rewriting American History

Post by wtf »

Science Fan wrote: Thu Jun 15, 2017 10:30 pm Gustav: I refuse to respond to your comment, as you have shown yourself to be a science-denier, a history-denier, and basically, a person who substitutes conspiracy theories and bigotry for the most basic of facts. Since you have continued to address comments to me, and I don't have any desire to see any of your comments ever again, I shall now place you on the "foe" list along with two others, a user named veg something and another named herbal, I think, so that your comments shall never appear to me in the future.
You represent the contemporary left well. You're not interested in debate or argument. If someone has an opinion different than yours, you simply prefer to silence them. Since you can't "no platform" Gustav, you choose to not see his posts.

As someone who prizes free speech and rational discourse, I would consider it an honor if you would block me too.
Post Reply