Page 1 of 2

Rewriting American History

PostPosted: Jun 14th, 2017, 9:29 am
by averagejoe
As an amateur historian...it is well known when researching history, you know anything written by the old soviet union is not to be trusted....

The American leftist education system has been re-writing American history....this the next step.

Rewriting American History

The real agenda behind the destruction of Confederate monuments.


Image
General Robert E. Lee

George Orwell said, "The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history." In the former USSR, censorship, rewriting of history and eliminating undesirable people became part of Soviets' effort to ensure that the correct ideological and political spin was put on their history. Deviation from official propaganda was punished by confinement in labor camps and execution.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266971/ ... r-williams

Re: Rewriting American History

PostPosted: Nov 24th, 2017, 8:21 pm
by Queen K
How about North American history being offensive as depicted as a painting?

Yes, a saskatchewan hotel had a painting hanging in their lobby for decades. Decades of course without a single complaining snowflake forcing them to take it down that is.

I mean, this is getting absolutely out of control!!!!!


http://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-ne ... d-painting

The painting, which depicts French explorer Samuel de Champlain looking over the Chaudiere Falls on the Ottawa River, standing with one hand on his hip and the other on his rifle, occupied an entire wall at the hotel.

The other subjects in the painting are three Indigenous men. Contained to the right corner and shown sitting on the ground wearing what experts say is incorrect traditional dress for the region, they appear to serve as a backdrop to the Frenchmen.

The 1912 painting is a “fine example of Eurocentric colonial notions of superiority of the time period,” University of Saskatchewan Art and Art History associate professor Mary Longman wrote in an email.


Offended over the Colonial context? Is that complainer insanely drinking the Grape or the Lime Kool-aid?

Re: Rewriting American History

PostPosted: Nov 24th, 2017, 9:40 pm
by Omnitheo
Re-writing history is about trying to pretend the civil war wasn’t about slavery. Or that some of these men honoured in monuments were indeed honourable men.

I disagree with dismantling monuments. I feel plaques could be added to offer additional insight and better educate.

Removing monuments though isn’t going to re-write history. That info extends far beyond statues or art. When Iraq was invaded and the statue of Saddam toppled, it wasn’t to act like that part of history didn’t happen. Same went for the wall, and the same will go for future generations in what is now North Korea.

Re: Rewriting American History

PostPosted: Nov 24th, 2017, 10:39 pm
by maryjane48
Queen K wrote:How about North American history being offensive as depicted as a painting?

Yes, a saskatchewan hotel had a painting hanging in their lobby for decades. Decades of course without a single complaining snowflake forcing them to take it down that is.

I mean, this is getting absolutely out of control!!!!!


http://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-ne ... d-painting

The painting, which depicts French explorer Samuel de Champlain looking over the Chaudiere Falls on the Ottawa River, standing with one hand on his hip and the other on his rifle, occupied an entire wall at the hotel.

The other subjects in the painting are three Indigenous men. Contained to the right corner and shown sitting on the ground wearing what experts say is incorrect traditional dress for the region, they appear to serve as a backdrop to the Frenchmen.

The 1912 painting is a “fine example of Eurocentric colonial notions of superiority of the time period,” University of Saskatchewan Art and Art History associate professor Mary Longman wrote in an email.


Offended over the Colonial context? Is that complainer insanely drinking the Grape or the Lime Kool-aid?


Why are you calling first nations snowflakes when you know the horrors they suffered under europeans ? If it was a painting depicting a man having sex with a teenager would you call the women complaining snowflakes also ?

Re: Rewriting American History

PostPosted: Nov 25th, 2017, 3:45 pm
by FreeRights
maryjane48 wrote:Why are you calling first nations snowflakes when you know the horrors they suffered under europeans ? If it was a painting depicting a man having sex with a teenager would you call the women complaining snowflakes also ?

But it doesn't depict a pedo, it depicts a historical event. If history offends you, thats a shame so don't read it. Its surprisingly simple.

Re: Rewriting American History

PostPosted: Nov 26th, 2017, 6:28 am
by jimmy4321
There's a difference if it's rewriting history for accuracy.

Re: Rewriting American History

PostPosted: Nov 26th, 2017, 9:24 am
by Gilchy
Removing statues of traitors is not erasing slavery from history, it simply stops celebrating them.

Re: Rewriting American History

PostPosted: Nov 26th, 2017, 11:05 am
by FreeRights
Gilchy wrote:Removing statues of traitors is not erasing slavery from history, it simply stops celebrating them.

I agree that removing the statues is not erasing history (with books and the internet now, you simply cannot erase history - although there's going to be a ton of alternate realities of history floating around).

However, I don't agree with removing statues. They are part of history, and like ancient Greek and Roman statues, should be treated as artifacts. Not all of the Greek and Roman statues depict good people.

If people are celebrating a statue or a painting or whatever because they see all the racism or negative points behind it, the solution isn't to remove the artifact. Being pro-Confederate doesn't automatically mean pro-racism - without actually having conversation and debate, nobody really knows why people believe what they do, but people have that right to believe it.

The reason that there's such a divide between right wing and left wing people is due to the failure on both sides to be able to have an open debate - and following, not labeling and hating the other person if they fail to agree. Specifically when talking about people on the left protesting speakers at universities - I will and continue to criticize them for that.

Re: Rewriting American History

PostPosted: Nov 26th, 2017, 12:24 pm
by maryjane48
You say being pro confedrate is racist ? Really ? Lol even most americans know what civil war was about .. And the statues will be removed as alot already have been .

Shall we erect statue of hitler in ottawa for german canadians since its just a statue ? :smt045

Re: Rewriting American History

PostPosted: Nov 26th, 2017, 2:45 pm
by Gilchy
The vast majority of the statues were put up in the 1940s-60s, reacting to civil rights movement in a not so subtle reminder of the “Southern Heritagw”.

Re: Rewriting American History

PostPosted: Nov 26th, 2017, 5:38 pm
by christopher
maryjane48 wrote:You say being pro confedrate is racist ? Really ? Lol even most americans know what civil war was about .. And the statues will be removed as alot already have been .

Shall we erect statue of hitler in ottawa for german canadians since its just a statue ? :smt045


History of the civil war show tax's imposed on the South played a big roll many Americans do not know that.

Re: Rewriting American History

PostPosted: Nov 26th, 2017, 9:30 pm
by FreeRights
maryjane48 wrote:You say being pro confedrate is racist ? Really ? Lol even most americans know what civil war was about .. And the statues will be removed as alot already have been .

Shall we erect statue of hitler in ottawa for german canadians since its just a statue ? :smt045

Being pro Confederate doesn't necessarily mean pro racist. Even if a person is racist, that isn't hate speech until they run around suggesting a certain race of people should be killed. I would argue that yes, even a racist should be able to talk without being protested, because it's through dialogue that these issues can get sorted out.

I'm entirely pro free speech. Just because I don't like it or because its wrong doesn't mean that it cannot be said.

Re: Rewriting American History

PostPosted: Nov 26th, 2017, 9:57 pm
by Verum
FreeRights wrote:
maryjane48 wrote:You say being pro confedrate is racist ? Really ? Lol even most americans know what civil war was about .. And the statues will be removed as alot already have been .

Shall we erect statue of hitler in ottawa for german canadians since its just a statue ? :smt045

Being pro Confederate doesn't necessarily mean pro racist. Even if a person is racist, that isn't hate speech until they run around suggesting a certain race of people should be killed. I would argue that yes, even a racist should be able to talk without being protested, because it's through dialogue that these issues can get sorted out.

I'm entirely pro free speech. Just because I don't like it or because its wrong doesn't mean that it cannot be said.

Protest is a form of speech.

Freedom of speech just guarantees that you are free to say what you want, with some minor caveats. It does not insulate you from the consequences of your speech. It does not mean that anyone has to listen. It does not mean that anyone has to give you a platform. It does not prevent you being protested.

If the best thing you can say about the speech you are about to give, if all you can say to defend it to those who disagree with you is that you are legally allowed to say it because of freedom of speech, you have a very weak case and should probably examine the purpose of what you are about to say. That said, I stand by your right to say pretty much with minor caveats.

Some people might think that by promoting your rights, even if I disagree with your actions, means I am supporting you, but those people are wrong.

Re: Rewriting American History

PostPosted: Nov 26th, 2017, 10:06 pm
by FreeRights
Verum wrote:Protest is a form of speech.

Freedom of speech just guarantees that you are free to say what you want, with some minor caveats. It does not insulate you from the consequences of your speech. It does not mean that anyone has to listen. It does not mean that anyone has to give you a platform. It does not prevent you being protested.

If the best thing you can say about the speech you are about to give, if all you can say to defend it to those who disagree with you is that you are legally allowed to say it because of freedom of speech, you have a very weak case and should probably examine the purpose of what you are about to say. That said, I stand by your right to say pretty much with minor caveats.

Some people might think that by promoting your rights, even if I disagree with your actions, means I am supporting you, but those people are wrong.

I agree with you that protesting speech is fine. However, having speakers cancel their events due to safety issues, causing increased security, and essentially preventing people a platform is not fine.

Protesting in the means of blockading doors to prevent others from hearing it is not fine. This is the step between not agreeing with something, to preventing others from hearing it.

I also agree that if the best argument one can make to give a speak, is that it's legal, it's a weak argument. But an argument should not even be had, as they have a right to say it and people should be able to hear it. If a person has no platform, then nobody will attend. It absolutely disgusts me, even as a liberal, not even to see people protest speeches, but to see people from preventing others from seeing them.

Re: Rewriting American History

PostPosted: Nov 26th, 2017, 10:17 pm
by maryjane48
Lol you think giving nazi alt righters a platform is something we should allow ?