Why Revisionist History is Easy

Posted Sunday, October 24, 2010, at 3:10 PM
View 3 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • I wanted a chance to respond to the thought that history has been revised somehow. What has happened is that truth is finally coming out after the New England version of history, which was filled with lies, has been the most accessible history for most of 200 years. They did have to revise history to cover the crimes they committed in invading the South.

    The New Deal was a failure, in that it prolonged the Great Depression by several years. Try reading the work of an economist who knows 2+2= 4, and not some fantasy government statistics of a socialist apologist. Thomas Woods or Walter Williams or Thomas DiLorenzo.

    The exact number of blacks who fought for the South is still being researched. A black history professor had found 50,000 pension applications before his untimely death. Try picking up one of the books or videos on the subject. I know one reason this is not popular is because blacks in the Confederate army were often not segregated, and at reunions there was no segregation, unlike the U.S. army and their reunions.

    And the Tea Parties are revisionists??? Absolutely not! They are the ones trying to teach the truth about history so we can get back to the principles of our Founding. Lower taxes, less government spending, less government involvement in our daily lives. And taxes HAVE NOT gone down. A nice LIE, but that is all it is. And according to Congress, they are going up again. The North invaded the South over taxes. When we have a president who lies so much, I know it may be confusing for those who think history is being revised, but it is the same lie all over again.

    And lies are from the pit of hell.....

    -- Posted by Southerngent1555 on Tue, Oct 26, 2010, at 10:49 PM
  • *

    Revisionist History 101, thanks for the example Southern.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Oct 26, 2010, at 11:46 PM
  • *

    Where do you get your information Southern. I really would love to know.

    "The North invaded the South over taxes." There you go ladies and gentlemen. The "truth" shall set you free. The war wasn't over slavery or even states rights. It was over taxes. Please expand on that one Southern, because there is a lot missing on that one.

    It really is interesting that you claim, twice, that the North invaded the South despite the fact that it was the Confederacy that fired on a United States installation. But hey who needs silly little facts when you have revisionist history on your side.

    "And according to Congress, they are going up again."

    Any sources to back up this claim? You do know that Congress is a body of elected officials, it's not an office that just releases information from time to time right?

    Wow how could I forget that revisionist perspective on the New Deal. Despite all the evidence stating that the New Deal was working, that it would have worked even better had FDR not pulled back the reigns on most of the projects, right up until the outbreak of the war, it was an absolute failure. Where's the proof?

    "A black history professor had found 50,000 pension applications before his untimely death."

    Who was this mysterious black history professor and why was his work not continued? Historians rarely work on their own, they typically have teams of people working on a project. Who did the 50,000 pensions belong to? Blacks, whites? Who exactly?

    "New England version of history, which was filled with lies, has been the most accessible history for most of 200 years."

    So, we didn't win the war for independence?

    We didn't form a new nation?

    The New England version of history that you apparently despise so much I believe is a myth that has been created on some of the website that you apparently frequent.

    As I said, previously, your entire post was Revisionist History 101. Who needs facts when you can just present the ideas as you have with not basis of fact and nothing to back it up.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Oct 26, 2010, at 11:59 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: