Corruption of history

[Rsmyth]

In other threads the corruption of history is disscused. The posting of blatantly inaccurate information or wild conspiracy theories without any supporting evidence perpetuates this misinformation for future researchers. What are your thoughts about the rhetoric of the SCV, UDC and the lost cause?

[GustD45]

Groups like this attempt to enoble their cause to show that they are the victims of Northern aggression and how slavery was never an issue that lead to the war. Despite what groups and individuals like this say History cannot be revised to suit your conscience.

[L Verge]

I think I know where this is leading, and I am not touching it with a ten-foot pole. Each one of us can express our personal opinions (and many of those opinions can be backed up with factual data - believe it or not). The end result of this will be another contentious disagreement between our factions.

Personally, I have friends in both of those particular organizations as well as acquaintances in various Union organizations. I neither condemn nor praise them for their opinions and actually appreciate that both sides are keeping the study of history and lineage alive in a culture that is certainly turning away from those topics. Along the way, most of them will likely encounter a fact or incident that might make them learn even more.

As for the origins of these groups, I know enough about the aftermath of the Civil War to know why people created them. Some held to a Lost Cause syndrome, but those of Northern persuasion seem to have formed their patriotic groups as a way of bragging that they had won (IMO - and the ones I know today still do...).

Some of my favorite CW photos were actually taken many years later at the anniversaries of Manassas and Gettysburg, where the fading fighters of 50 years before are shaking hands and/or posing together. They seem to be saying that they still have their beliefs, but that the war is over and that they have moved on. I wish modern "debaters" would do the same and just study all aspects of the Civil War (actually the entire 19th century) and stop trying to pick "fights" nearly 160 years later.

Sorry, but that's how I feel. BTW: Should I ask about the DAR? Nobody (except one of my history profs in college) seems to pick on them.

[Rsmyth]

I will pick on the DAR. Despite the fact that the acknowledged first casualty of the revolution was the death of a Black man in Boston, the DAR was a discriminatory organization.

[AussieMick]

It really emphasises the importance of people who care about historical truth questioning everything.

At the risk of bringing up a whole range of side issues ...

"Old King Cole was a Merry Old Soul" ... the image of England's Henry VIII as a jolly old chubby man. Contrast this with him arranging for 2 of his wives to be killed. And the slaughter of thousands of his citizens.

The current film about Mary Queen of Scots. From the reviews (I havent and will not see it) Mary was a "wee" (Scots accent required) heroine and Elizabeth I was an evil old woman who arranged for Mary's death. My thoughts? those times were horrible and monarchs constantly lived under the threat of rebellion and murder ... Elizabeth's mother was judicially killed ... the film seems to be virtue-signalling 'all Scots/Irish rebels were heroes that fought bravely against English aristocratic cheats'. The film includes a negro actor as one of the aristocratic characters ... in the UK in the 1500's ! ... the only reason must be that its 'virtue-signalling'. Yes, I liked Braveheart ... but this is going too far.

The film Vice (maybe I'm pushing my luck here .... again, I havent seen it) ... seems to be anti-Republican propaganda piece aiming to make money out of the virtue-signalling Anti-Trump hysteria current in the world. Unfortunately the result could be millions of impressionable young people having the wrong ideas about events that happened when they were toddlers .

[L Verge]

(01-17-2019 04:34 PM)Rsmyth Wrote:  I will pick on the DAR. Despite the fact that the acknowledged first casualty of the revolution was the death of a Black man in Boston, the DAR was a discriminatory organization.

Most countries/cultures/societies around the world then and now are discriminatory in one way or the other (not just about race). There are two key words in the U.S. vocabulary right now that point to that -- diversity and inclusion -- and they do not necessarily apply just to the race issue.

Try being in a position (especially gov't.) today where one is trying to hire based on qualifications for the job on one hand and going by the "rules" (that aren't written, but definitely implied) by the HR division. This is strictly my opinion, but the tactics of hiring that were ruled illegal thirty years ago are now back in full swing - but in reverse.

I am all for hiring the best qualified candidate, no matter the race, gender, age, orientation, etc. I just worry that those latter qualities may take precedence in some situations over the "best qualified" selection.

[JMadonna]

(01-17-2019 04:34 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  It really emphasises the importance of people who care about historical truth questioning everything.


The current film about Mary Queen of Scots. From the reviews (I havent and will not see it) Mary was a "wee" (Scots accent required) heroine and Elizabeth I was an evil old woman who arranged for Mary's death. My thoughts? those times were horrible and monarchs constantly lived under the threat of rebellion and murder ... Elizabeth's mother was judicially killed ... the film seems to be virtue-signalling 'all Scots/Irish rebels were heroes that fought bravely against English aristocratic cheats'. The film includes a negro actor as one of the aristocratic characters ... in the UK in the 1500's ! ... the only reason must be that its 'virtue-signalling'. Yes, I liked Braveheart ... but this is going too far.

I found the film to be surprisingly good. It showed both women trying to maintain their monarchy from a rebellion of their nobles. The issues of being led by a woman and their opposing religions were played up prominently. Neither woman was portrayed as a heroine but rather victims of their time (who secretly admired each other). Guess it had to be politically correct for the #me too movement.

[L Verge]

(01-17-2019 08:12 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 04:34 PM)Rsmyth Wrote:  I will pick on the DAR. Despite the fact that the acknowledged first casualty of the revolution was the death of a Black man in Boston, the DAR was a discriminatory organization.

Most countries/cultures/societies around the world then and now are discriminatory in one way or the other (not just about race). There are two key words in the U.S. vocabulary right now that point to that -- diversity and inclusion -- and they do not necessarily apply just to the race issue.

Try being in a position (especially gov't.) today where one is trying to hire based on qualifications for the job on one hand and going by the "rules" (that aren't written, but definitely implied) by the HR division. This is strictly my opinion, but the tactics of hiring that were ruled illegal thirty years ago are now back in full swing - but in reverse.

I am all for hiring the best qualified candidate, no matter the race, gender, age, orientation, etc. I just worry that those latter qualities may take precedence in some situations over the "best qualified" selection.

Rich - In reference to your comment about the first American killed at the Boston Massacre being a black man: From my previous history classes and readings, Crispus Attucks was perhaps bi-racial (African and Native American), but some folks described him as all "Indian."

I have also read about disputes as to him being the first killed. There are descriptions of the British soldiers firing into the club-carrying crowd and Attucks leaning on a stick and then falling. He was autopsied, and the cause of death was attributed to ricocheting bullets. It has become American folklore that he was the first to die, but I am not sure that it is documented or provable.

At one point, back in my teaching days, there was an account that said Crispus had just walked out of a Boston tavern (slightly tipsy) and automatically followed the irate crowd. That source implied that he was likely killed without knowing what he was participating in. Again, documented fact?

[Gene C]

My question fits the subject title, but is not related to the Civil War

Anyone seen this movie - "Who Will Write Our History?"

http://whowillwriteourhistory.com/

[L Verge]

(01-23-2019 10:03 AM)Gene C Wrote:  My question fits the subject title, but is not related to the Civil War

Anyone seen this movie - "Who Will Write Our History?"

http://whowillwriteourhistory.com/

This is the first that I have heard of this production, but the title appears to have been lifted from the lines of a song in the stage production of "Hamilton." Very thought-provoking title, however, and certainly pertinent to topics long before the Holocaust -- such as those who have attempted for 155+ years to explain the Civil War.

[LincolnMan]

All history is corrupt according to somebody- whether it be an individual, a tribe, or a country. History is viewed through their particular lenses. We are not exceptions to this as we also have our unique filters and lenses. Knowing this can and should lead to humbleness in realizing the perspectives of others have legitimacy for that reason alone. This used to be the goal of liberal arts education-to expand our ideas and knowledge of what others have believed- then to form beliefs based on that broader education.

[Mylye2222]

Another big corruption of history is one hype conspiracy theory, successful in an EU on the path of Islamization. It's says the European Zionist Jews planned the Holocaust alongside the nazis, in order to exterminate their fellows who were assimilated, and then establish the State of Israel... Pathetic as well as the fake "Sion protocol"