Friday, October 22, 2004

A touch of Middle Eastern history

I read Debkafile just about every day, they are an Israeli team of journalists with pretty high intelligence connections and always have a bird's eye view of what is happening in this area of the world.

I won't comment much on this piece, but to say that although I support our efforts in Iraq to build up a stronger, and might I add friendly aligned country with our interests, Iraq the "democratization of the country" is more than likely doomed to fail, it is a Westerner's concept and not at all keeping with the history of this part of the world where ones family lineage speaks more to the individual than what we understand ourselves.

Hashemite Dynasty Shows the Flag at Gulf of Aqaba

What is the most telling is the need for symbol and of rights of inheritance that are still felt by the principle parties involved and why they motivate so much. They obviously motivate the Al Queda adherent to sacrifice themselves for their ideal. I suppose Democracy and our ideal of freedom motivates our soldiery to keep their faces towards the enemy and apply courage as the insurgency begins to dwindle down.

Thursday, October 21, 2004

Outrageous!

I picked this up from Obnoxiousfumes.com who in turn found it mentioned on another blog.

Hardball with Chris Matthews, Oct 18

I won't pull any captions out of context and leave the reading you to, but as a historian I'm appalled at the lack of restraint exhibited by our former President here. Surely a student of the Revolutionary War would be able to make intelligent comparison and proper analogy when comparing one war and time period to another. But, I suppose the exigencies of politics and dogma win out in any struggle for the pursuit of truth.

I will take a few of the statements made and correct them, for if you watched this interview I hope you at least scratched your head and said, "that just don't sound right". If you didn't, if you nodded your head up and down and lapped up the astounding statements made and accepted them as truth, then I will have to say your understanding of American history (let alone world history) is very shallow.

I will say this, however, Carter was not on Hardball because he was a historian, otherwise one would hope his statements would have been more accurate and his use of history not so mind boggling inaccurate.

Carters statement about the British being misled is wrong on so many levels. It presumes that the British, as a people, had a choice in what the Crown chose to do or not to do, as if the Brit of the revolution was just like the Brit of today. I have to believe that Carter knows the score here, who but only the most bored and dense grade schooler doesn't know that England was ruled by a monarch, a king, a man who held sole power to lead the direction of the country. But that wasn't his point; he used a poor analogy to make his political point. We were a colony, Mr. Former President, a colony in rebellion. We were still not much different from the people “across the pond”, we had not "evolved" egregiously from the people we would then be fighting against.

Carter then launches into our war in Iraq in an attempt to liken it to the British fighting the British in our own war. Ok, not only are the figures of civilian casualties thrown out and increased for effect (there were civilian casualties, but tens of thousands? I've followed the war and I've followed our occupation and unless my mental calculator is broken, I'm sure I would remember 30 to 50 thousand civilian dead). Then he likens our presence in Iraq to the enforcers of a foreign concept of rule. The British where not present in the colonies to enforce a foreign concept, they were holding on to what was being ripped from them.

Now, I don't know what histories Matthews has been reading, but he attempts to lay "democratization of other societies" upon President Bush as if Bush is the sole inventor of this program. The Philippines and Cuba come to mind from our earlier actions since before Bush was ever alive!

Then finally begins the descriptions of the Revolutionary War and another twist in revisionist history, nationalism. It isn't too hard to see where Matthews and Carter are leading to in this pseudo discussion couched in our own history. Not only is this attempt to link the "minutemen" of our own Revolution to the insurgency in Iraq but also a queer maligning of our own "patriotism". Iraqi insurgents: Sadrists - those followers of Mohammed Sadr in his bid to force his way into Iraqi politics and the foreign Al Queda fighters.

Now, a myth which is being further promulgated here is the militia. Every township had a militia; it was for Indian defense and local protection. The militia met when called upon or on a schedule. They were called upon to augment regular forces and saw service off and on during the French and Indian Wars and the Revolution. The militia’s finest hour, Lexington green. Militia companies formed and met and harassed the British regular forces and won the war! No, they dispersed and the British went where they willed. Although used throughout the war to augment, they never filled the role that history and our mythos has given them. Did they answer the call? Mostly, when it suited their needs and they could be drawn away from home. It was the Continental Regulars who stood the test and fought the type of warfare the British were used to. It was they who stood the eventually won us the war, with the final intervention of the French. Carter made sure to put this in, in a snotty sort of way no doubt. French ships and troops arrived just in time for us to deliver the final blow to the British. Let's not get all foggy eyed and sing our favorite French ditty. France intervened for one reason: when we were winning and to deal with their arch nemesis on the European continent, Britain. It would be four long years of struggle before any French troops set foot on our soil.

Carter's last statement caps the "let's embrace the French" and prove to the world that we owe them our country. The French showed up after Washington had already pushed Cornwallis into the fortifications of Yorktown. The French were there for the knockout blow and cannot be slighted for that. But to infer that the French were all that stood in the way of our independence or continuance of being a British colony, I'm sorry but the record does not support the role Carter and Matthews wish to give the French, another Monarchy bent on hegemony in Europe at the time.

Saturday, October 16, 2004

Dred Scott vs. Sanford and Roe vs. Wade

I ran across this at History in the News
with a further link to The Wichita Eagle
about President Bush's reference in the last debate
regarding the comparison between Dred Scott vs Sandord
and the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decisions.

I didn't watch the debates so cannot comment directly
on what the President meant, may have meant, or so
forth. What I'm sure is being lost on many as they
scramble to spin this, is the unilateral decision
making power of the Supreme Court justices to effect
all Americans without process of legislation.

Dred Scott was a slave whose master had transported
him and his family through a free state to another
slave state. Dred Scott then contended that due to
having passed through free soil, he was then entitled
to be free himself as well as his family. He then
brought suit against his master for his freedom.

The Supreme court overturned a lower court decision
that Scott could not sue for his freedom as he was not
a citizen of the state of Missouri and could not bring
suit against his master with the following statements:


10. The plaintiff having admitted, by his demurrer to the plea in abatement, that his ancestors were imported from Africa and sold as slaves, he is not a citizen of the State of Missouri according to the Constitution of the United States, and was not entitled to sue in that character in the Circuit Court.
11. This being the case, the judgment of the court below, in favor of the plaintiff on the plea in abatement, was erroneous.

Contrary to the myth that this case was decided based
upon the "slave as property" but was in fact one of
the symantecs of what a citizen is and who can bring
suit in a court. That this had the overall meaning and
definition in history cannot be denied and the case as
a whole did become a further turning point in the
eventual abolishment of slavery in the US.

Unfortunatly, it would seem that the analogy was a
poor one when compared with Roe v. Wade. Whereas the
Supreme court then sided with the rights of the states
to define thier own citizenry based upon status (if
for example Missouri had on thier books the following
law: a person of African decent who is born into
slavery will be considered a slave until such time as
they have been freed by thier master but will not be
considered a citizen of the state of Missouri ...). In
the latter Supreme Court decision the rights of the
states to have laws making abortion ilegal were struck
down.

So, in one sense the Supreme Court Justices held to a
strict application of the constitution in regards to
the definition of citizenship as relating to the laws
of the states and what the constitution provided for
who could be counted as a citizen of those states:


4. A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a 'citizen' within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.
5. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its 'people or citizens.' Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being 'citizens' within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit.

Whereas in our latter case the rights of the states
were usurped by the court in the rights to make laws
governing thier citizenry in relation to abortion,
thus as some have argued, passed law from the bench
beholden to no one.

Part II of Star Treck Enterprise: Storm Front


Actor J. Paul Boehmer in the Star Treck Enterprise season opener, part II as a Waffen SS officer. Star Treck Enterprise: Storm Front
Posted by Hello

The final part of the Enterprise season opener aired this last Friday evening and it was overall a decent episode. The writers of the series have taken pains to make the latest captain a bit rougher and grity as compared to the other characters in the successful franchise.

I won't go into the details on the episode, that can be watched and read from the web site or on TV when it is re-aired. What I wanted to comment on was thier always deft treatment of history and in this instance with cause and effect.

It is discovered that someone (a temporal agent) has altered history by assasinating Lenin in 1916. Lennin has been in exile in Switzerland since Tzarist Russia had him expelled for his agitation and political sedition. He is all but quiet however in his exile and has planned a return to Russia when the timing becomes right. He doesn't make it, however, and the communist revolution that Lennin will start never happens. According to this episode, since there was no Bolshlevick Russia to oppose his own National Socialist revolution in Germany, Hitler does not see the east as a threat and as he start war in 1939 he can do so without that threat to his back door. Hitler then is enabled to conquer the west with impunity and take Britain out as well before turning to the United States and to Russia.

Interesting process of cause and effect that does lend itself to creative "what if" scenarios. Without a communist Russia under a Stalin, what would Europe look like today? Quite different I would imagine in both geo-political borders and overall mind set.

Although, with any cause and effect scenario, one can never quite escape the overall fabric of history and must then go even further back in order to describe a valid "what if".

All sci-fi aside, the most pain ful Star Treck episodes to watch have been thier "historical" ones. It is too easy to sacrifice truth and realisim for artistic message and image. The Waffen SS soldiers (elites in the German Army whose prowess on the battlefield earned them both notoriety and respect from all sides of the war) were bumbling idiots as envisioned by the series writers and director.

But, I digress!

Unfortunatly, the nuance of the "Lennin gambit" let's call it isn't as clean as one might think. In 1916 the second year of the stalemate war was in full gear with both the British and French preparing the next big "breakthrough" offensives and the Germans were merely "holding the line" in the west while contending with the Russians in the East and spreading thier resources thinner in other parts of the world to prop up thier allies in the Balkans.

In actuality, a Russia without Lennin would have spelled a prolonging of the "Great War" by keeping Germany's forces spread between two fronts and keeping Austria-Hungry in the war. When the Commintern sued for a seperate peace with Germany, thus taking Russia out of the war, the Imperial War staff of Ludendorf and Hindenberg where brought from the East and allowed a breadth of control over German war strategy that had hitherto been only in the person of the Kiaser himself. The disasterous German spring offensives in 1918 drained thier manpower then in turn lead to a collapse of the western front in the face of the renewed allied offensives in the summer/fall of 1918.

The Lennin gambit lays quite a bit upon the conflict of National Socialisim against Bochlivisim as a guiding factor in WWII. It is no doubt that Hitler cast envious eyes upon the Serf's under Communist rule but it lays too much upon this one singular point of Hitler's war aspirations. It also leaves quite a lot unanswered from the first war.

Friday, October 15, 2004

Qoutes

I found another interesting set of quotes, one duringthe First World War as it pertained to Iraq and onefrom President Bush at the end of Operation IraqiFreedom. It will be noted, the first quote references thecampaign where a British force liberated what is nowIsrael and forced the Turkish army to abandon Iraq. Asan ally of Germany and posing a threat to Britishcommerce via the Dardanelles, Britain had fought acostly and ineffectual battle on the Gallipolipeninsula in 1915 against the Turks and had shiftedthe area of operations to the Egyptian theater. Illsupported and out generall'ed, the Turks and Germansretreated.

****
British General F. S. Maude to the people ofMesopotamia, March 19, 1917, as
quoted by NiallFerguson in "Hegemony or Empire," Foreign Affairs(September
2003):
Our armies do not come into your cities and lands asconquerors or enemies, but as liberators. ... It is[not] the wish of [our] government to impose upon youalien institutions. ... [It is our wish] that youshould prosper even as in the past, when your landswere fertile, when your ancestors gave to the worldliterature, science, and art, and when Baghdad citywas one of the wonders
of the world. ... It is [our]hope that the aspirations of your philosophers and writers shall be realized and that once again thepeople of Baghdad shall flourish, enjoying theirwealth and substance under institutions which are inconsonance with their sacred laws and their racialideals.

George Bush, April 4, 2003:
The government of Iraq, and the future of yourcountry, will soon belong to you. ... We will end abrutal regime ... so that Iraqis can live in security.We will respect your great religious traditions, whoseprinciples of equality and compassion are essential toIraq's future. We will help you build a peaceful andrepresentative government that protects the rights ofall citizens.
And then our military forces will leave.Iraq will go forward as a unified, independent, andsovereign nation that has regained a respected placein the world. You are a good and gifted people -- theheirs of a great civilization that contributes to all humanity.

****

I won't pretend to know the greater strategic goals ofthe campaign in Iraq nor of the greater consequencesdown the road.

Saturday, October 09, 2004

Enterprise season opener


Season Opener of Star Treck: Enterprise, Capt. Archer in NY, circa 1944
Posted by Hello


Remember when TV shows used to only take a few months
in the summer for the off seasons then pick back up in
August? I suppose production schedules or other things
keep pushing season premiers later and later yet the
actual programs themselves do not venture too far into
the spring and summer before ending a season.

Anyway, back to the opener.

My wife and I like watching Star Treck and the various
shows that have spun off from the original franchise
(save for Deep Sleep Nine, neither of us could really
get into that one) and we've been watching them for
years faithfully, their writing staff is intelligent
and creative and the palate that they work with (the
future) is always fertile ground to pluck a story
from.

They should just stay away from doing history! I
suppose that entertainment has always cast an envious
eye towards history with the intent of "correcting it"
or "making it right" or twisting it to make some
modern point. I think the worst offender to date has
to be Dances with Wolves, the typical good Indian, bad
White Man, evil Soldier that has spawned many a trite
and terrible tale since the 60's on our cinema
screens.

Enterprise? It was a decent episode and it carried the
story lines along started from the first season even
of the Temporal Cold War, of the relationship between
McDaniel's and Capt. Archer. But what is it about just
doing it like it was that seems to be so anathema to
writers? There are so many things wrong with the
social and military fabric of this episode that I
cringed throughout most of the show.

Social

OK, the Nazi's have invaded the US in 1943/44 and are
on the eastern seaboard and pushing into the Midwest.
We find that Archer is under the care of a black
woman. They are in New York, so no big stretch there.
Archer, well he's "progressive" so he pays it no mind.
We are then suddenly introduced to her compatriots,
three Mafioso types. Three Italians walk comfortably
into her flat (she called it an apartment, not a
typical term for the easter seaboard) and even show
concern for her. I'm sorry writers, but as much as you
wanted to make a statement about race relations in
this alternate time line, you do the truth of our
history a disservice with this casting and plot line.

Why where three healthy looking Italians allowed to
just walk about NY while it is under occupation?
Because it was convenient to the storyline but did
nothing to create the atmosphere of occupation by an
enemy force. If they weren't criminals (which they
hinted they where) they would have been arrested and
concentrated somewhere or forced to labor in the
factories in Europe, thus removing a potential threat
of rebellion, a mistake Germany made with occupied
France in fomenting the conditions for sedition.
Thousands of Frenchmen where shipped off to Germany
under sometimes false pretense for work permits. These
toughs from the episode would not have been allowed to
lolly gag around, idle hands are the devils workshop.

The Germans

Why is it, whenever someone wants to do something with
Nazi Germany that it is always the Waffen SS that is
portrayed? They are shown as cocky, cruel, sadistic,
and everything else under the sun. Where these things
all true? Yes, and just as true and by incident count
for count of any other organization where someone
finds themselves in control over helpless human beings
regardless of what side they are on. American
atrocities are lightly treated and often not even
explored but were perpetrated not only upon the
civilian German populations during and after the war
but also upon German prisoners. It suffices to say
that the one lesson we should have learned from the
Abugrabe prison is that the capacity for cruelty abuse
is an innate thing within human beings. It is also a
curious happening with rear echelon troops verses how
front line soldiers treat their opposite numbers
during and after combat with a level of respect.

So, I suppose it could be argued that it was a Waffen
SS division who held New York, but the more plain and
to me just shocking revelation is that the Waffen SS
uniform is the universal symbol of evil. It is that
due to our sloppy history retelling and the use of
symbols in propaganda to inflame the masses and the
emotions.

Waffen SS divisions where but a fraction of the total
manpower of the Whermacht in WWII. Of the eventual 3
million Waffen SS soldiers of the 9 to 10 million
total serving, most were not even of German decent,
but were volunteers from the occupied countries.
Volunteers who volunteered willingly to fight against
Russia and Bolshevism. If Germany occupied that
country, you can find at least one division raised for
the Waffen SS from there. Latvians, Estonians,
Yugoslav's, French, Swedes, Danes, Russians, and
Duetches Reich or ethnic Germans from these countries
where recruited.

Absurd tactics

I always get upset when our entertainment is based
upon supposition and fooling around with historical
reality to the point where our overall grasp of the
truth is warped by the continual pounding in of the
"perfect" ideal of the filmmaker. The worst of this
was the scene where Commander Tucker and Lt. Reed have
beamed to the surface to track down their errant
shuttle pod. They are surprised by a roving SS patrol
and run. Then, inexplicably and adverse to even
someone with 0 training, the soldiers abandon the
chase and all decide to check out the shuttle. All of
them! Like little children in a candy store, or like
little Germans invading a Polish candy store they all
crowd into the cabin while Cmdr. Tucker proceeds to
detonate the explosives he and Lt. Reed have just
planted. Nice! It may appeal to the sycophantic
obsession we have in any media dealing with the
Germans to see a bunch blown up, but it deals an
insult to the several million German soldiers who
fought and died and their allies for what they
themselves believed in. It is time we admired the will
and spirit of men who fought and did extraordinary
feats of arms in Russia against overwhelming odds and
fanatical wastage of Russian soldiery in massed
attacks against thinly held defensive positions.

The formula good GI, stupid German is an insult to
both us and them and unfortunately in this episode we
continued that formula. Is it so hard to portray
things with at least a little more accuracy and still
keep the premise of the story? Is it that these
writers are just stupid when it comes to this time
frame? Or, as I suspect to be more the case, are they
so steeped in the desire to twist and use history to
front their on social Utopian order that anything is
fair game. Maybe it takes a soldier to appreciate
another soldier regardless of the side or the century.


What if's

The what if portion of this episode was only dealt
with on a superficial level, and that was an
intriguing aspect of this in the historical time line.
Hitler had 0 designers on the US and rightly so.
Despite Operation Sea Lion, the invasion of the
British Isles which was planned for but never
executed, Hitler had no real designers upon Britain
but to force them to capitulate so that he could deal
with his real target, Russia. A majority of the
Whermacht fought and died in the east against an
equally fanatic and tough opponent in the Russian
soldier. Despite the numerical superiority enjoyed by
Stavka, the Soviet high command, the Heer, Luftwaffe,
and Waffen SS formations bested them every step of the
way and but for odd decision making by Hitler would
have taken Moscow before the winter snows. Not quite
the soldiers portrayed before our eyes in movies and
TV shows though.

Although this alternate history does give the aspect
that the Germans wouldn't have gone as far as they did
without the help of these aliens, a falsehood as
demonstrated by history itself up to 1942 when the
resources began to be stretched taut for Germany it
also gives little credit to the Prussian militarist
tradition and the awesome power of will and doggedness
demonstrated by the common German soldier.

Is it any wonder that we look with disdain upon our
history when we flippantly watch something as this
episode and do not feel at least a little
uncomfortable with the portrayals? Not everyone can
have the knowledge I have nor be expected to do the
level of research, but even on a surface level this is
poor history in many aspects and the writers should
just stick to their strengths of the future and social
relations. My wife and I always sort of roll our eyes
when we encounter an episode that picks up on some
modern issue to "spread the gospel" of whatever is
supposed to be the PC viewpoint. They should at least
stick to the "preachy" episodes and leave our history
alone unless they choose to at least portray it
properly.

Thursday, October 07, 2004

Quotes from our past

I'm not an FDR man myself, as the past played out he
was a neophyte on the international stage and knew
little when it came to politics in Europe in regards
to the intentions of Stalin, his agreements and
"warming up" to the Russians at Yalta consigned
millions to the shroud of the Iron Curtain because he
"thought" Stalin could be appeased with a little give
and take. The rest is history now, however.

But, I found the following interesting as this is very
much in our modern debate about defense and
initiative.
***

FDR, Fireside Chat, Sept. 11, 1941:

My fellow Americans:

The Navy Department of the United States has reported
to me that on the morning of September 4 the U. S.
Destroyer GREER, proceeding in full daylight toward
Iceland, had reached a point southeast of Greenland.
She was carrying American mail to Iceland. She was
flying the American flag. Her identity as an American
ship was unmistakable.

She was then and there attacked by a submarine.
Germany admits that it was a German submarine. The
submarine deliberately fired a torpedo at the GREER,
followed later by another torpedo attack. In spite of
what Hitler's propaganda bureau has invented, and in
spite of what any American obstructionist organization
may prefer to believe, I tell you the blunt fact that
the German submarine fired first upon this American
destroyer without warning, and with deliberate design
to sink her. ...

I assume that the German leaders are not deeply
concerned by what we Americans say or publish about
them. We cannot bring about the downfall of nazi-ism
by the use of long-range invectives.

But when you see a rattlesnake poised to strike you do
not wait until he has struck before you crush him....

It is clear to all Americans that the time has come
when the Americas themselves must now be defended. A
continuation of attacks in our own waters, or in
waters which could be used for further and greater
attacks on us, will inevitably weaken American ability
to repel Hitlerism.

Do not let us split hairs. Let us not ask ourselves
whether the Americas should begin to defend themselves
after the fifth attack, or the tenth attack, or the
twentieth attack.

The time for active defense is now.

Do not let us split hairs. Let us not say, "We will
only defend ourselves if the torpedo succeeds in
getting home, or if the crew and the passengers are
drowned."

This is the time for prevention of attack.

If submarines or raiders attack in distant waters.
They can attack equally well within sight of our own
shores. Their very presence in any waters which
America deems vital to its defense constitutes an
attack.
***

A different day for sure, a different President, and a
different set of circumstances. However the principle
should still stand.

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

History and now

I ran across an interesting link while searching for
history web sites. This was a question posed to a
dozen historians on the historical parallels between
pre-war Europe in 1939 and the Suez canal crises of
1959.

This is the nice thing about history and the
discipline of history. It is a discipline and there is
a training in research and analysis that is bred as
one travels the academic route. There are currents to
historical study and insight and once in a while a
historian shakes free of the dead wood of past thought
and historiography to introduce a new paradigm.

http://hnn.us/comments/8816.html has this discussion
though now stale as far as current events go, it does
introduce a uniquely historiographers approach to the
past and modern times. We hear that this phrase: "if
you do not know the history you are doomed to repeat
it". These men and women didn't truck much with this
concept and they are correct. One cannot duplicate
exact situations from one era onto another for the
variables are always different. Although taking the
strict approaches to this comparison, the lessons are
not totally tied to their time frames.

The lessons of appeasement, of containment, of
mollification and so forth have been learned. The test
now and in the future is how to apply those lessons to
every new circumstance that comes our way. This is
what history and historians are good for, for the
analysis of the past and the interpretation of the
motives and the atmosphere in which decisions where
made. Unfortunately, most will never know the
difference for the voices of historians are mostly to
one another. Historians write monographs that are read
by other historians and they then attack or defend one
another based upon their stature and their expertise.
Few will be swayed by the analysis that is never put
before them.

I don't agree with all of their interpretations, but
that is what historiography is for.

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Don't know much about ...

History, we can't escape it but I suppose we can sure
cover it up, subvert it, make it up, fabricate it,
propagandize it, refute it, or just simply investigate
it.

Most of us are too lazy to dig into history, for we
think of history as that stupid assignment Mrs.
Blechly gave us in high school that needed to be
annotated on 3x5 note cards and five pages long! It
reminds us of boring hours spent in a quiet library
and thumbing through index cards:

Peloplenesion war, The
Rise and fall of Sparta, The
Why Athens lost the Peloplenesion war - see also The
rise and fall of Sparta
Athens, City state - see also the rise and fall of
Sparta
Sparta, the rise and fall of - see also the rise and
fall of Sparta, The

We all do not need advanced degrees in history and not
all of us will have the patience to wade through the
mounds of research accumulated throughout the
centuries by other historians. But, what we seem to be
feeding our children and ourselves is a diet of "done'
know much about history ... and don't really care to
know anything." We are content with having someone
else tell us the story and as long as it makes a
little sense we go on our merry way regardless of the
factualness of the statements made.

We eat the steady diet of PC history where white man
is bad, Indian, Black, Chinese, Hispanic are good and
this information is presented in slick History Channel
documentaries and programming that cleverly portray a
stilted view of history that even Mrs. Blechly's text
books would blush at!

Is it that these episodes in history have been short
changed or is it that people with little understanding
of history are deciding what should and shouldn't be
presented to the public?

Areas of history that have been given short shrift
should be explored and explained and portrayed in a
way that can be easily grasped as it pertains to our
modern world. But to subvert the whole message for one
that satisfies the conscience is deceitful and
harmful. It is more than just the bland History
Channel programming, it is the glossing over or
outright covering over of our history that are
inexplicable or unexplainable when faced with our
modern ideas of equality, rights, and post World War
sensibilities.

Instead of explaining the origins of the Civil War in
a broad sense, we teach our children that the Civil
War was fought to free the slaves because it feeds our
sensibilities post civil rights movement.

Our sensibilities breed poor history, our poor history
breeds in-sensibility in our generations and a poor
view of ourselves as time moves onward.





Site Meter