 |
Hum...Who's next? Thomas Sowell or Ibram X. Kendi? Hum
Commented: Saturday, May 4th, 2024 @ 3:44 pm
By: Van Zant
|
|
Since it appears my last comment was not posted I'll try again. JS - try a book not written by a white guy.
"Maybe from an author not on your preferred reading list?"
Commented: Saturday, May 4th, 2024 @ 9:18 am
By: Big Bob
|
|
How about an African slaves perspective? One key sentence from my last post was: "maybe from an author not on your preferred reading list?"
I can provide a title or 2 if your interested.
Commented: Friday, May 3rd, 2024 @ 5:38 pm
By: Big Bob
|
|
A book? How about "The Great Republic", a history of the United States written by former Britich Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill? If you bothered to read that, as I have, you will find Churchill's viewpoints on the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 very similar to American viewpoints.
As to the War Between the States, both the northern and southern versions leave out things. Both are politicized and always have been. Some on each side even objected to their side's slanting of the war, like Sherman who after the war objected that the war had not been about slavery and if it had been, he would have fought for the south. The most objective viewpoints on the war are those from people in other countries who observered or studied it, like Sir Winston Churchill, who devoted a chapter in his book on US history, "The Great Republic" to the causes of the war. Churchill concluded that the main cause of the war was a rupture between two competing concepts of government that had existed since the founding of the county, between the concept of a powerful cental government espoused originally by Alexander Hamilton and represented in 1860 by Lincoln and the north, on one hand, and concept of limited government, originally espoused by THomas Jefferson, and represented in 1860 by Jefferson Davis and the south, on the other. The north's narrative of the war being about slavery was also disputed by two contemporary observers of high stature. Novelist Charles Dickens, a leader in the British anti-slavery movement described the north's attempts to say the war was about slavery as "specious humbug designed to conceal their desire for economic control of the southern states." Similarly, Karl Marx wrote "the war is not about slavery, it is a war of economic subjugation by the north against the south." Then there is British political philosopher Lord Acton, best known for his quote that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" who praised the Confederate constitution as being a great example of democracy that corrected the defects in the US Constitution. As Churchill wrote, the south stood for limited government, something that is badly needed now. Those Jeffersonian concepts would solve a lot of what is wrong in America and in the western world. President Jefferson Davis, in his memoir, "The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government" (another book you should read) pointed out that the principles of limited government were lost when the south lost the war, and he correctly predicted the continued increase in the power of the federal government that has occured since that time. I can see why a big government advocate such as yourself does not want the limited government perspective of the south and of Thomas Jefferson taught. And it is amusing that someone such as yourself who does little but regurgitate the far left narrative would try to tell others to read different viewpoints.
Commented: Friday, May 3rd, 2024 @ 11:23 am
By: John Steed
|
|
And that is your perspective. There are bits of truth in it, but let's just say it's not the gospel. To expand your knowledge, look outside yourself. The museums are great but maybe you might read a book or two? mAybe from an author not on your preferred reading list?
As for the civil war, I get that you're sensitive about it. As you know, at the end of most wars, the winner writes the history. Right or wrong it's true. from where I sit, the North went easy on the South. General Lee could have found himself hung by his feet and set on fire along with many others that attempted to dissolve the Union. Treason often carries a much higher price. In my view the Southern perspective should be taught, as a cautionary tale. not celebrated but never forgotten. I mean nobody want to repeat it right?
Commented: Friday, May 3rd, 2024 @ 10:27 am
By: Big Bob
|
|
Having personally visited quite a few British historical museums in London and elsewhere, including the British Museum and the Imperial War Museum in London, and the Historic Ships at Portsmouth, I noted very little difference in the presentations regarding the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 where we were on opposite sides.
One of the very few nuisances was when visiting the National Museum of the Royal Navy at Hartlepool, England (where an original frigate from the War of 1812 period is on display), one factor that I have never seen mentioned in the US was the difference in construction and armament standards between the European frigates of the period and the class of super frigates like Constitution which were build and armed to ship-of-the-line standards although their number and arrangement of guns still classified them technically as frigates. The US navy at the time had no ships-of-the-line so they built a few of these super frigates. I have also visited US museums, including visiting USS Constitution in Boston. American accounts of Constitution's battles do not deny this, but they just don't mention it. That is the only very minor difference I have seen in accounts of those wars between British and American accounts at museums. What you describe about university history courses is, unfortunately, a rarity these days. Heck, it was a rarity when I took history courses as an undergraduate in the 1970s. Some are worse than others but universities today tend to indoctrinate rather than educate, and that is fast becoming a problem in public schools as well. A poll last year showed that 71% of public school parents in NC were concerned about political indoctrination of their children in the public schools. I doubt there are many public schools today, even in the South that teach students both the Southern and Northern perspective on the War Between the States. That is one of those areas of slanted history, historically based on politics. When I was in school, we aat least got the southern perspective in our state history class, but in US history it was strictly the northern version.
Commented: Thursday, May 2nd, 2024 @ 5:04 pm
By: John Steed
|
|
Are you sure? Americans and Britons may agree that both wars happened, but are you sure both sides would see those wars in the same light? When you get away from the where and when, I'm willing to bet interpretations of the events, causes and outcomes begin to diverge.
If one wants to educate themselves in regard to this bit of history, one would need to examine both sides. And that is exactly what happens in a university history class. Remember education isn't so much about memorizing facts as it is about seeing the world from various points of view. Yeah we all memorize facts, but what separates the educated from the un-educated is the ability to understand the complexity of human endeavors. The nuance. Its important because it leads to understanding. The more we understand each other, the easer it becomes to coexist in our shared home.
Commented: Thursday, May 2nd, 2024 @ 3:14 pm
By: Big Bob
|
|
Okay, lets take the Revolutionary War or even the War of 1812 where the US fought the UK. There are not going to be significant differences in they way they are presented in modern British accounts versus modern American accounts. Both sides of those conflicts will present objective history.
Where the problem comes in is where some ideology, like the communists or the woke are trying to politicize history, and that is when the distortions start flying. It is the totalitarian ideologies that are absolutely the worst for this. As George Orwell wrote. "The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history."
Commented: Thursday, May 2nd, 2024 @ 10:37 am
By: John Steed
|
|
JS - Yeah, you've hit the nail on the head. Objectivity seems to be virtually unknown to the "woke." The "woke" one on this thread constantly does all the things he accuses others of doing.
He makes judgements and even puts words in the mouths of others to fit his narrative, so it conforms to his assumptions. He brings race into everything. It's kind of a flip side to the white racism of years gone by and just as nauseous. I'm no psychiatrist, but it is kind of like him becoming the bad thing he heard about. There is no need to go on with all the examples throughout these pages. They are many and are there for all to see. The thing that is relevant is that there are a number of people every bit as confused (or whatever) as the example on this thread. Put them together with the people responsible for the cultural plunder, like this West Point example, and we have a dangerous situation in our country. At a time like this it is important for sane people of good will to step forward.
Commented: Thursday, May 2nd, 2024 @ 10:13 am
By: Van Zant
|
|
JS - you clearly agree with CV. You have a right to be wrong.
For a moment, let's talk objectivity - if you can, please explain what that looks like as it applies to human history. The implication is a right and wrong interpretation of human events. Sure some facts are somewhat objective.. Example: The American Revolution did indeed happen. However, the how, why, when and significants of, all change depending on who you ask. If you only ask decedents of white Europeans, you only get one perspective. And that isn't history.
Commented: Thursday, May 2nd, 2024 @ 9:57 am
By: Big Bob
|
|
Objectivity is a standard totally unknown to the "woke" far left like Bolshevik Bob, and that is why he just cannot seem to comprehend it. To hin, everything revolves around race, when in the real world, it does NOT. They are all gung ho to tear down history that does not fit their narrative or agenda, like widespread destruction of historic monuments.
Commented: Thursday, May 2nd, 2024 @ 9:02 am
By: John Steed
|
|
Actually van ZANt, he didn't. Why?
He views, (to use his term) 'objective history", through his lens and his experience. Anything outside his experience he deems slanted history or propaganda. In America, white people do this all time. they often assume their version of "history" is objective (it isn't) and therefore more true and relevant than the historical perspectives of other people and cultures (they aren't). For that to be true, it would mean we all experience the world in the exact same way. Utter nonsense, right? CV has a right to his world view. We all do. The question is, should we consider history from more than one point of view.? Cv says no. I say yes. That, in a nut shell is why his explanation is piss poor. Now if you believe it's possible to have a monopoly on the truth, as CV does, it offers the comfort of a safe space to marginalize a large segment of the population. What gives anyone the right to do that?
Commented: Wednesday, May 1st, 2024 @ 10:58 pm
By: Big Bob
|
|
CV did a real good job of explaining the way history is approached by people and societies. That used to be taught in University History Department graduate courses (don't know about these days of wokeness).
A good number of commenters on this thread have displayed a strong background and understanding of history. With all due respect, the far-left troll is a bit over his head here. To his credit, he is trying. I suspect he could learn a great deal from this experience if he weren't such an idealogue. Fanatics often times are hindered by their zealotry in the pursuit of learning. Hate is also an unfortunate obstacle. Passion is good. Hate is poison. It is too bad what is happening at West Point. A healthy society builds on its history and tradition. These days we are not a healthy society, and these types of things are indicative of our decline. If we do not rebound, I hate to think of what may become of us.
Commented: Wednesday, May 1st, 2024 @ 8:38 pm
By: Van Zant
|
|
History can be told as 1) objective history, 2) slanted history that ignores inconvenient facts and glosses over things with generalizations, or 3) all out historical propaganda. Communist countries are noted for the last version, and that is certainly what one would get in communist Vietnam. The ideal standard for history in a democracy is objective history.
A slogan widely used by the communists has been "history is on our side" and the modern American far left has revised that slogan to become "the right side of history". Communists when they are in power constantly try to destroy and rewrite history. Chairman Mao's Cultural Revolution is a prime example and one that seems to be the concept behand the American and European far left's cancel culture. A good example of objective history is compare what a modern German student learns about World War II and what an American student learns. There is very little difference because both countries are democratic and, at least for now, tend to look at history objectively. George Orwell has written extensively about how totalitarian regimes try to rewrite history in their drive to control the present and future. We are now seeing some of the things Orwell predicted being advanced by the far left in American and in Europe. The middle point is slanted history, which sticks to facts but relies on selective facts to skew interpretations. A good example is the history of the War Between the States. Those writing from a northern perspective will leave out things like the Corwin Amendment and the Fremont Affair which call into question the basic northern narrative about the war and are therefore memory-holed. Similarly, there are things that one writing from a southern perspective would gloss over. Mildly slanted history is not so bad as the heavily slanted history that borders on pure propaganda. I prefer objective history, but mildly slanted history is readable if one recognizes the slant they are being presented with. When one gets to some of the left's distorted history like the 1619 Project, its authors are writing through a prism, not a lens.
Commented: Wednesday, May 1st, 2024 @ 5:01 pm
By: Conservative Voter
|
|
CV fails to see that History is told through a lens.
Example: Lets say two people want to learn about the Vietnam war. One American living in the US One Vietnamese living in Ho Chi Minh City Does any one think these two will learn the same history of events and/or lessons from that war? Same war. But 2 perspectives. Is one right, and the other wrong. No Are both perspectives worth hearing about? Yes. Clear as a bell.
Commented: Wednesday, May 1st, 2024 @ 2:30 pm
By: Big Bob
|
|
Said the white man.
Commented: Wednesday, May 1st, 2024 @ 2:21 pm
By: Big Bob
|
|
There is no "white history" or "black history". There is simply only history.
Confederate history is also the history of many ethnic groups, like the highest ranking minority to serve in the war on either side, Confederate General Stand Watie, whose statue has been attacked by BLM/ANTIFA thugs. I would point out that the Yankees, in contrast, did not even let minorities serve as officers at any rank. Confederate heroes who distinguished themselves in battle include Moses Dallas, a black Confederate naval officer, who was instrumental in planning and helped lead one of the most daring exploits of the war, the capture of the Union warship USS Waterwitch while she was on blockade duty off Savannah in a surprise nighttime attack boarding from small boats. When the far left tries to cancel Confederate history, people like Watie and Dallas are among those they cancel. That is also true of Confederate political history, where Judah P. Benjamin of Louisiana became the first person of the Jewish religion to hold cabinet rank in a government this side of the Atlantic. Benjamin served in the cabinet of President Jefferson Davis throughout the war, successively as Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Secretary of War.
Commented: Wednesday, May 1st, 2024 @ 12:25 pm
By: Conservative Voter
|
|
Again your take away is has got you twisted all up. You favor only white history and resent any other perspective.
There are many others stories out there. We should be willing to hear them.
Commented: Wednesday, May 1st, 2024 @ 11:55 am
By: Big Bob
|
|
We should never forget that it was RINO Greg Murphy who voted for the bill that led to this Maoist Cultural Revolution style attack on our history, including making Fort Bragg no longer Fort Bragg. "Cancel culture" Murphy needs to GO.
Commented: Wednesday, May 1st, 2024 @ 11:54 am
By: Rino Hunter
|
|
Bobbie never seems to let us forget that he hates whites and males, especially white males, and even more so if they are straight white males or Christian white males. That is the mark of today's "woke" brand of racism.
I would think a portrayal of Robert E. Lee, a man who wrote in 1859 that "slavery is an institution of moral and political evil" and who freed the hundreds of slaves he inherited from his father-in-law as soon as he closed the estate would be more acceptable to any black cadet who understood history than a portrayal of U. S. Grant who was still a slaveowner when the War Between the States ended and actually remained a slave owner until the end of 1865 when the 13th Amendment finally freed the Grant family slaves.
Commented: Wednesday, May 1st, 2024 @ 11:48 am
By: Rino Hunter
|
 |
The modern-day cultural revolution purge going on throughout all of western civilization must end. Rational people must stand up and stop this insanity.
History is a rich tapestry of human stories. Totalitarian attempts to sanitize it to their own standards or to cancel it entirely only destroy it. When we stop building on our history, we stop enriching our culture. We ultimately commit cultural suicide. This attack on West Point history and tradition is awful. People are now even considering taking down reconciliation monuments. Think about what that means. Lately, in many countries people have destroyed monuments to James Cook of all people. Cook mapped more of the world than anyone. His voyages catalogued thousands of plants and animals and contributed greatly to mankind. During our own war for independence against Britian, Benjamin Franklin wrote to captains of colonial warships, recommending that if they came into contact with Cook's vessel (a British vessel), they were to "not consider her an enemy, nor suffer any plunder to be made of the effects contained in her...but that they treat the said Captain Cook with all the civility and kindness...as common friends to mankind." Cook's work was that important to the human race, and he gave his life to make those contributions. Now in today's hate filled world, he is made to be a supposed villain to be erased from history. As for me, no thank you to that totalitarian nightmarish vision of the world. Madness such as this must be opposed.
Commented: Wednesday, May 1st, 2024 @ 10:10 am
By: Charles Hickman
|
|
Grow up, Bobbie. When you run out of even your distorted facts in an argument, it should not be time to turn to personal attacks. Go take a puberty blocker or something.
Commented: Wednesday, May 1st, 2024 @ 10:05 am
By: Conservative Voter
|
|
The white male president in the 1950's admired Robert E Lee. A real shocker.
Commented: Wednesday, May 1st, 2024 @ 9:48 am
By: Big Bob
|
