Politics meets historical revisionism.

Remove all ads!

NOG

You probably know I'm not one of the people who will complain if someone says all people have God given rights.

Yes, I used that link.

It is good that slavery has now been addressed-probably after enough people complained about how bad the original proclamation was.

Talking about "the Confederacy" is not the same as talking about the WWII campaign in N. Africa.

Talking about 1 particular Civil War campaign would be similar to talking about the WWII struggle in Africa.

When talking about the "Confederacy" a range of things beyond individual military battles or campaigns should be included. Moreover if the focus actually was just on those battles and their tactics then it could have in such a manner that didn't delve into promoting sympathy for the Confederacy as talk of the suffering of southerners would have done. But the original proclamation opted to make that suffering a focus and one that did not include either the suffering of those involved in putting down the Confederacy or of the slaves whose backs, literally, it was at least partly built.

Any discussion of the "Confederacy" itself is about the Confederacy as a whole and that discussion very much should include a discussion of slavery-it would be irresponsible at best not to.

Also there was a very real and long running propaganda campaign to make the Confederacy sound better than it really was. I suspect you can see how having a discussion about the Confederacy without mentioning its bad side would readily play into that propaganda campaign.

 

You know I could not resist that comment.

I believe it was a political decision to appease the conservative base in VA. Since part of my family is from Virginia, all of whom voted for him, I can see where that would work out pretty well for the governor. From the standpoint of good history, it's a hack job.

A large part of nationalism is good myth-making. National identity and mythology have been partners since the beginning of time. And that can be a good or a bad thing, depending on the results, as you suggest. But that does not make it good history.

I never said that, and it nothing to do with the point in question. If you wish to follow through on another topic, please start a different thread.

That would be fraud, not revisionist history. And what you are suggesting has nothing to do with the point in question. The governor's proclamation is a negative revision of history, not a techinical revision, because he is not a qualified historian. If he is an historian, then his work is open to peer-review by other historians.

It would just be incorrect and not really history.

Take a close look at that statement.

Playing the victim again? At this point, my violin playing has had so much practice that I could join the local symphony. The historical record presents a mixed bag on that point. Certainly, that did happen in some instances, but that does not apply to "Everyone who fought on the side of the South."

Show me the numbers.

He chose to leave it out, while admitting its importance, once asked about it directly. The proclamation is not an historical work. You are not seeing it for what it is: It IS a piece of history itself, thus subjected to scrutiny by how the proclamation itself fits into the historical record. Slavery has a special place in the dialogue about the Civil War among both the public AND professional historians. The governor is not a professional historian, but has instead chosen to ask the public to consider the history of the Confederacy, while not mentioning the hinge pin on which the war turned. Some us believe this was only done for political reasons.

I can't say for certain, but I would be horrified if it were true that the average person was unaware of those basic facts.

NOG - Many of the points you raise in this post are interesting and while I don't agree with some of them, they would be better on another thread.

 

There you've touched on the crux of the issue pplr -- while most of the world believes the Confederacy, American Civil War, and slavery all go hand-in-hand there is a huge portion of people (mainly white) in the southern states who do not believe slavery was at the heart of the civil war. Many of the people I've talked with in the south firmly believe the Civil War was about the rights of the states being trampled on by the federal government and the people from the north imposing their beliefs on the people of the south. Right or wrong, to those people adding slavery to the discussion about the Confederacy simply charges the issue emotionally and prevents a real discussion of the subject.

I always thought they were deluding themselves, but in order to have an intelligent discussion with them you had to accept their beliefs even if you did not agree with them.

 

Have you been talking to my family in VA, T2? That is very accurate for most places in the South, at least that I've been to. In Texas I've talked to some who see slavery as the issue, but that it was certainly worth defending. No joke! I'm NOT being sarcastic. You should know that T2; you went to college here. But that was Austin, the "liberal" center of Texas.

 

Yes, I do, and I wasn't targetting that particular jab at anyone here, but rather at the people who will complain if exactly everything isn't perfectly PC.

My point in that was to show that subjects can be compartmentalized, that you can talk about one part of something without talking about the whole. This is especially true when you're making a vague announcement of something, like the opening of a new Chucky Cheese, an investigation into something, or X History Month.

I have not seen anything of this, so I honestly don't know what you're talking about. If such a thing really has been going on somewhere, then that definitely does explain some people's objections to this.

That's what revisionist history is, fraud. The number one issue I hear about concerning revisionist history is the Holocaust and Holocaust deniers. They want to revise history.

No. As I pointed out before, I'm a Yank, not a Southerner, so I'm not a victim at all. As Ragusa says, I have no dog in this fight.

This is my point. The historical record does, but the common perception (outside of the South at least) doesn't. When I moved from New Hampshire to Virginia, I was amazed to see how drastically different the teaching of the Civil War was. In New Hampshire, you'd have thought the Confederacy was the Army of Darkness. Here in Virginia, though, they're people.

You know, somehow I knew you'd bring that up. It only means he's a politician, though.

I think this actually defeats your arguement. If it is not a historical work, but a part of history itself, it doesn't even need to be accurate to the historical record, just to itself. He could have declared that the Confederacy won the civil war and it'd still be just as good a part of the historical record (specifically, recording that we elected a loon for governor).

... Watch Jay-walking (something Jay Leno used to do). You'll be horrified.

 

No, it is not. The Holocuast deniers are not "revisionists," they are "deniers." "Denial" is the term used by real historians. Please go back and review my earlier post on historical revisionism (the two types), so that you will know what it is.

So the Republican governor of your state isn't "your dog?" I'm rather pleasantly surprised.

Really? Did you do a survey to draw that conclusion? Or are you just drinking too much of the Kool-Aid in ole' VA? I've heard the "Oh, pity us. Everyone outside the South just hates us," "persecution" BS from any number of those in the South before.

I went to school in New York and Ohio and never heard that. I did hear that rich plantation owners in the South exploited the lower classes for their own gain during the CW, but I never heard what you suggest. In fact, in NYC, Bobby Lee and the Army of Nothern Virginia were often glorified to no end in American History classes that I encountered there. Sorry, maybe I just had better classes.

Yes, my wife was born and raised in VA, and last time I checked she was one of "the people."

Well, yes, he is. More on that later....

What does the Proclamation ask of Virginians, NOG? That was my point. It is an official document that asked the citizens to consider certain aspects of a particular moment in history [the historical record]. Those aspects were selected by the governor. He made a mistake, as some of us has been arguing.

This says it all:

Which resulted in this:

Yes, well, NOG. The proof is in the pudding. So now I'm not sure what you are arguing about. I agree with your governor. So now the "dog in your fight" is on my side of the fight. Lucky me. But still, please go back and take a look at what revisionist history is. There are two types: one which is academic, and one which carries a negative connotation (or look up negationism).

Here is a really good discussion on this subject by some history buffs:

http://historum.com/showthread.php?t=12388

I've seen it! I don't believe it. Like most things on TV it's probably phony. Oh yes, they found a few morons. But how many do they really talk to before they find the selected morons they are looking for to provide that kind of entertainment? IF they are not actors. But I can't say for sure.

 

Chandos, historical revisionism (negationism). Most interesting:

Spoiler

In revising the past, illegitimate historical revisionism ("negationism") appeals to the intellect—via techniques illegitimate to historical discourse—to advance a given interpretive historical view. The techniques include presenting known forged documents as genuine; inventing ingenious, but implausible, reasons for distrusting genuine documents; attributing his or her own conclusions to books and sources reporting the opposite; manipulating statistical series to support the given point of view; and deliberately mis-translating texts (in languages other than the revisionist's).[4] Practical examples of negationism (illegitimate historical revisionism) include Holocaust denial and some Soviet historiography.[5][6]

No, no he really isn't.

Personal experience and first-person reports. And what's this 'everyone hates us' 'persecution' BS? Unless you're waving a confederate flag around your front yard, there's no persecution or hate. It's a matter of historical opinion, not modern prejudice.

Yeah, it sounds like you did.

Really? Your wife fought in the civil war? I'm impressed. And confused.

Actually, no, he did nothing the kind. The closest he comes to 'asking Virginians to consider certain aspects' is:

Spoiler

it is important for all Virginians to reflect upon our Commonwealth’s shared history, to understand the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Civil War, and to recognize how our history has led to our present; and...
this defining chapter in Virginia’s history should not be forgotten, but instead should be studied, understood and remembered by all Virginians, both in the context of the time in which it took place, but also in the context of the time in which we live, and this study and remembrance takes on particular importance as the Commonwealth prepares to welcome the nation and the world to visit Virginia for the Sesquicentennial Anniversary of the Civil War, a four-year period in which the exploration of our history can benefit all;

So, it's important to reflect on shared history (just 'history'), to understand sacrifices made by leaders, soldiers, and citizens (specifically Confederates, but this is Confederate History month, not Civil War History month), and to understand history (again, no specifics, just 'history'). The only specific issue brought up is the sacrifices made. Now, you could easily add slavery as another specific issue to be brought up, but I don't think a lack of that, on it's own, equates to historical revisionism.

1.) again, I don't have a 'dog'
2.) again, he's a politician. People objected, so he changed, so surprise.

Thank you, that was a very interesting read. And it seems to support my conclusion. Netationism involves an actual attempt to change the facts of history by illegitimate means (involving mustard gas in the Battle of Hastings, for example). You'll also note that the Holocaust Deniers are given as an example.

Oh, I'm sure it's a filtration of the worst of the worst. At least, I hope it is.

 

My logic tells me that omission does not indicate denial, whitewashing, revisionism, or whatever. If you asked this guy "was slavery a bad thing?" of COURSE he's going to answer yes. But he simply has a different focus at the moment.

I'll use a personal example. When people ask me "how many brothers and sisters do you have, LKD?" I usually say "4 brothers and one sister." because that's the family I know. Now, if you want to get down to brass tacks, I ALSO have 2 half sisters, but communication between that side of the family and ours is extremely rare for non-nefarious reasons -- we just don't have a relationship because of distance and age. Now, does my omission of those two lovely ladies mean I hate them, that I am trying to erase them from my family's history, or something else horrible? NO! It's just that I tend to focus on the people I know and grew up with.

Now, I know that slavery is much more prominent in this case, but my point still stands. The Governor wants to focus on something different than what the Hairshirt Enthusiasts want him to, and he paid a price for it, so much so that once again, an apology had to be made to appease the PC left. I think it's a disgrace. I think it's really low to automatically ascribe malicious motives to a guy just because he has differing focii than you do.

 

That's the very nature of being 'PC:' you have to pay homage to whatever the collective PC sensibility dictates. No discretion allowed.

In politics, to do otherwise is, unfortunately, suicidal. Thus we have these apparent sycophants speaking up for everything under the sun whenever they are directed to do so. It's a pretty good demonstration of the evils of bully politics, really.

 

Whose historical opinion?

I hope this helps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

Yes, it's called marriage. Maybe that's the Uncivil War....

As usual....

I take it your comments were about those people who lived at the time of the CW? As I said, that's a mixed bag. I thought we clarified that? Or were just commenting at the different perspective on the CW you gained there? I thought you may have been commenting on [those people in VA] who gave you a new perspective on that history.

It's one of the reasons I still have a strong interest in history. Many of the teachers who taught me had a genuine passion for it, especially those in NY.

Negationism (which is why I gave you the term) is what you were trying to explain, not real historical revisionism. As I commented there are TWO uses for the word.

This is real historical revisionism:

THIS is what you said:

It's not. That's what negationism is, which is why I gave you the term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism

It's right at the top of the page.

Of course, the governor is no longer engaged in historical revisionism of any kind, since he admitted he screwed up.

He may be a politician, but he showed a lot of class in admitting he was wrong. A tip of the hat to him - from me at least - because it took a lot of courage to admit to that mistake.

---------- Added 0 hours, 52 minutes and 34 seconds later... ----------

The governor is making a proclamation for the people of Virginia. The meaning attached to an official document is of far greater weight than someone casually asking you "how many brothers and sisters" you have. For instance, if you were filling out official paperwork, would you be more accurate in the process, than if someone just asked you casually? Of course you would.

Slavery is an historical fact. That cannot be changed by declaring it "PCism."

Since when does a right wing Republican governor feel the need to apologize to the "Left" just to be PC? That would be next to NEVER. I believe he thought this issue through, as a result of the criticism, (from any number of sources - that may not have been just from THE LEFT), and arrived at a little more clarity on the issue. And did the right thing.

Don't make me laugh. With all the crap that is being said in the public at the moment about the "socialist" Obama by the likes of Palin and the Cheney clan, you need to find "malicious motives" in the PC left regarding political rhetoric on the issue of slavery and the CW? How funny is that?

 

I know it's a fact. He never denied that fact, he simply chose to not talk about it. That choice doesn't make him a demon. He never lied about it or said it didn't happen, he just chose to focus on something else.

Palin and Cheney are idiots. It is quite clear that when they throw the word socialist around they are using it for low (and faulty) rhetorical, connotative effect. That said, it doesn't excuse the Hairshirt fanatics from demanding constant flagellation for past policies -- to me it's censorship -- "you can't talk about this topic unless you do it OUR WAY!" -- That flies in the face of free expression.

 

Please understand, prior to your pointing it out a little while ago, I didn't know that there was a form of historical revisionism that was considered legitimate. Negationism was the only context that I had ever heard the term in. I also expect (don't know, though) that it's the only form of the term that most non-historians are really familiar with.

Anyway, I stand by my point that the original declaration wasn't revisionist history, of any kind. It wasn't an attempt at writing a history at all, nor did it seek to change any kind of perception about the Civil War, the Confederacy, or slavery. It didn't do it by legitimate means, so it isn't a legitimate historical revision, and it didn't do it by illigitimate means, so it isn't negationism. It just plain didn't do it.

It isn't slavery that's being called a PCism, it's the insistance that, every time the Civil War, Confederacy, or any figures or events from either are mentioned, there must be a token mentioning of slavery with it, just to make sure everyone remembers what evil, evil people the Confederates were. That is the PCism.

Since he got elected in a purple state that's moving more blue with lots of black people in it. I'll bet you if he had made the declaration in Texas, he wouldn't have changed it.

Chandos, this is BS. The left have made their malicious motives perfectly clear! You don't call someone a historical revisionist (popular term, not technical) and slavery denier because you like him. The whole uproar over this shows that, at least among those uproaring, there is ill will toward him.

 

That's why I wasn't beating you up over it, NOG, but just trying to hint at it.

Not techically, no. As I tried to point out in a previous post, there is a technical term for historical revision and a more practical one that is used in popular culture almost everyday. For instance, people often say, "The reason for the Consitution was crafted was to limit the power of the federal government," when they wish to advance a political agrument about the limits of the FG. The real reason for the Constitution was to enlarge the power of the FG, but that is beside the point, because they are really arguing that the Constitution does limit the power of the FG. That is a popular form of revisionism, because they are using the history to try and advance an argument, even though there is no historical evidence to support that. But there is a practical argument to demonsrate their point. Nevertheless, that is nothing like real historical revision, or even negationsim.

Neverheless, pplr and I were both wrong about the governor, because he did change the proclamation, which proves that he was acting in good faith. Never question motive without sound evidence to the contrary, would be the lesson (which I knew from the start).

Nevertheless, the proclamation will still be a primary source for the historical record, just as the events around it will be a part of that history, although many years from now, probably several hundred years, and nothing more than a footnote on how America still reacted to the issue of both slavery and the CW in 2010.

It is a real part of the historical record and cannot be changed to make everyone feel better over the issue.

I would like to think that your governor has more class than the one here. I'll trade any day....

It was more because of the pattern of a few events that seem to be evolving into something larger in rewriting history in popular culture to advance a political agenda. That is still something that remains to be seen as this issue unfolds, especially here in Texas. But as I commented your governor doesn't seem to be a part of that larger movenment, nor does this proclamation now that it is more accurate.

 

Yes, but it doesn't have to be mentioned at every turn. While the comparison to WWII may not be too good, I think the link to Black History Month is strong. The only reason there is a Black History Month is because of slavery and the persecution that came from it. Yet, unless the actual person being discussed was a slave, slavery usually goes unmentioned.

I'm still reserving judgement. We'll see.

So what you're saying is it was paranoia instead?

 

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get you.

 

No, it just means they're wearing white coats instead of black suits.

 

It's what they have under those white coats that worries me.

 

Heh-heh.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-co...70725/april-13-2010/the-word---the-lost-cause