[mccookgazette.com] Fair ~ 46°F  
High: 75°F ~ Low: 42°F
Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2014

Why Revisionist History is Easy

Posted Sunday, October 24, 2010, at 3:10 PM

For about the last forty years we have seen an influx of revisionist history. It has become rampant in about the last ten years, though, as a way to excuse behaviors.

In Virginia, for instance, they are using a textbook written by a woman with no formal training in history. There is one passage in particular where Joy Masoff makes the claim that: "Thousands of Southern blacks fought in the Confederate ranks, including two black battalions under the command of Stonewall Jackson."

There is no proof that hundreds, let alone thousands, of Southern blacks fought on the side of the Confederacy. When asked where she got the sources she admitted that she had done her research primarily on the internet. Maybe it is just me but if I am going to be writing a historical book, or textbook, I am going to be trying to find every source that I can. I will go through all the records that I can before putting in that book such a huge claim that is completely unproven.

This is why revisionist history is so popular today, you do not need facts to back up your claim.

It is revisionist history that has allowed Bill O'Reilly (who actually is a "student" of history) to falsely claim that United States soldiers massacred Nazi soldiers at Malmedy during World War 2 (when it was the other way around) to excuse the actions of American soldiers and the abuse that they performed in Iraq.

It is revisionist history that has allowed people to claim that the New Deal was a colossal failure while at the same time claiming that trickle down economics has been completely successful.

It is revisionist history that has allowed the claim that the Democratic Party of the 1860s and partially the 1960s is the exact same as it is today while the Republican Party has not changed at all.

It is revisionist history that has allowed Texas to take Thomas Jefferson off the list of thinkers that shaped the formation of America in their textbooks.

It is revisionist history that allows people to claim that in World War 2 we were fighting against Germany to stop the Holocaust, when we did not even know about it until the end of the war.

It is revisionist history that allows people of all political stripes to paint those of a a different political strip as similar or exactly like Hitler or Stalin.

The list goes on and on, but at the end of the day it is very easy to use revisionist history to defend your actions or the actions of someone else, because quite frankly you do not need facts to back up the statements you make.

Unfortunately it is this same revision movement that has made people that use it as infallible against any kind of argument.

The first story came from a New York Times story.

Some more revision:Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Hugh Shelton said on Sunday that "They have great militaries, great armies, but if you check the historical records, Christiane, as you know, we've never lost to any of them. We are the top of the pile. We are the best in the world. And we want to stay that way."

He said this in response to a question posed by Christiane Amanpour, "I mean some of the great allies of the United States have. Whether it's Canada, whether it's Britain, France, Australia, even Israel allows openly gay men and women to serve in the military. And they have great armies, great militaries."

So the a former Join Chiefs of Staff seems to be saying that the United States has never lost to a military that had openly serving gays.

Where is the proof? Naturally there is none, but it never stops someone revising history to make the assertion.

The big omission:Naturally I forgot the biggest group of revisionists in recent history. The TEA Party. Every bit of history that they have talked about in trying to bolster themselves has been revisioned. Let us start right off the bag with the reason for their name. They talk about the Boston Tea Party and how they were fighting for taxation with representation and how the new TEA Party was fighting for the same thing. Their particular revision is that what they are "fighting" for today is the same as what was being fought for then. It is not. What is more, what the TEA Party activists are actually fighting against is not actually there.

The high taxes that they are fighting against do not actually exist. Most do not know (or do not care to know) that in the last two years their taxes have actually gone down, and if the Democrats are able to get their tax cuts passed through Congress, the majority of the TEA Party's taxes will go down even farther.

For a group that is so against taxes they do not seem to know a lot about taxes.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

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. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


And Now for Something Completely Different
Michael Hendricks
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login
Hot topics
The More Things Change The More They Stay The Same
(6 ~ 8:37 PM, Sep 5)

Goodnight Sweet Prince
(3 ~ 11:45 AM, Aug 15)

Elections Matter
(14 ~ 2:15 AM, Aug 9)

Hodgepodgeiness
(262 ~ 6:55 AM, Jan 8)

It Begins ... Again
(24 ~ 11:41 PM, Oct 27)