More on Revisionist - oops! sorry - Alternative Historians

Why oh why do folks today like to place their 21st century morals and values on those from the past?
Why oh why do they insist that those who lived long ago were every bit as raunchy and rude as so many in our modern society?
Now, before you start clobbering me about how I have blinders on, how they really were as crude then as many are now, please understand that I realize that pre-marital sex, obscene language, rape, and many other ills did exist in the "olden days."
It just wasn't nearly as prominent and open and, dare I say, accepted as it is today. Here in 2008, anything goes: if it feels good, do it. Just turn the channel! Oh, just give them a condom in the 6th grade - they're going to do it anyhow! 1st ammendment says I can say anything I want whenever and wherever I please. Hey! They didn't tell me the coffee was this hot - I'll sue!
Need I go on?
First of all, please understand that, per capita, there was much less pre-marital sex in the mid-19th century than today. Because of journals and diaries and birth records (for children born out of wedlock), we know this to be true. I have yet to find proof of the opposite. Yes, I know that amongst the men in the military VD was fairly prominent. But, that's just the men in the military. Men only around other men and no females about. At all. This is, after all, the 'old school' military when women could not join. Except for an officer's wife, a laundress, or one of the ladies that snuck into camp to give the men "pleasure," a female would have been a rarity. Naturally, upon seeing a woman after quite a while without seeing one would get any man excited.
And on the homefront, people worked from 12 to 14 hours a day, six to seven days a week, plus church (yes, church!) and family and visiting on Sundays. When would they have had time for extra-marital affairs?
But, the new "alternative" historian (I swear I saw someone with this as his bi-line on the History Channel!) would have you believe otherwise.
All that I can say is show me the proof. Real proof.

Folks today also do not take responsibility for their own actions - the woman who successfully sued MacDonalds because she didn't know their coffee was HOT is a prime example of the stupidity of many in this modern day and age.
It's HOT coffee, and is advertised as such. Not warm. HOT! Let's think about this. Hot means hot. Oh! But not that hot, right? No - hot means hot! Look it up in the dictionary.

Language abuse. Does anyone know what the 1st Amendment concerning freedom of speech really means? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There - that is the full text of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Besides proving the myth of separation of church and state to be wrong and a lie, it also tells us that we have a right to freedom of speech. But, do you believe that (A) in an age (colonial and Victorian) where openly saying what was considered foul language in public could get one put in the stocks or in prison, our forefathers meant for this amendment to protect the right of one who spews obsenities every other word? Or do you think that maybe - just maybe - (B) they wanted us as Americans to be able to speak out against our government without fear or retribution? Hmmm...no brainer.
Unfortunately, there are those who feel A is the correct answer. I wish these mis-guided folks would study up on their history, especially their social history. They would then understand what our forefathers truly meant. Here is a quote from Thomas Jefferson, our third president, in a letter written to William Johnson in 1823 (taken from the book Thomas Jefferson: Writings Autobiography / Notes on the State of Virginia / Public and Private Papers / Addresses / Letters): “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
I am pretty sure we all know the probable reason this freedom of speech amendment was written.
By the way, "blue" language was considered a crime until the late 1960's or early 1970's.

When I hear people - especially so-called alternative historians (alternative / revisionist: same difference) - express the opinion that our morals are no different from the average citizen making a living in past centuries, I say, "show me the proof!" I can show you (and already have) my proof.
Just as I thought. They can't.

I really believe that in this everything goes society in which we live in today that we are not only harming ourselves with this attitude, but future generations to come. Our society has been sliding down hill "like a snowball headed for hell" (as the country song goes), and no president or whoever that says they're for change is going to stop it.
We are the only ones that can stop it.
I pray that we do.
The answers really do lay in the past.

Revisionist "Historians"

I really hate revisionist history.  I recently read a book entitled  “Lies My Teacher Told Me:  Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong,”  by James L. Loewen,  which purports to show that we were never taught the truth in American History.  Talk about revisionist PC!  The author is a far-left liberal who is bent on finding fault on virtually everything European...by opinion rather than facts.  As an example,  he consistently uses adverbs such as  ‘probably;’  throughout the text in a lame attempt to prove his point.   In other words,  offering his opinion as fact.  And many folks are buying into this crap.  Don’t believe me?  Check out the reviews on Amazon
www.amazon.com/review/product/0743296281/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt/002-4049274-7729626?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

There are thousands of books about every aspect of American History;  from the earliest colonists through 9-11,  any subject about our great nation is easily accessible at nearly any bookstore or library. Most of these books use numerous original primary sources:  letters,  journals,  diaries,  newspaper accounts.  Then you get one or two so-called  'historians'  who will release a history book that goes against the more popular grain  (Howard Zinn is the other horrendous pseudo-historian that comes to mind),  stating pretty much that all we have learned about history in school was untrue.  Of course,  the idea behind such books are very intriguing,  but, upon reading the text one will begin to notice that these so-called academic history books are based more on,  as stated,  agenda-filled opinion and political correctness rather than hard facts.  The authors will get their information from what they believe to be true without further deeper research.
No thank you – I will read the history books available that cite their primary sources plain and simple rather from a college professor  (which is the biggest red flag alert!).

What is it about these so-called  "historians"  (and their followers)  in this day and age that are bent on changing our history?  Yes,  I will agree that much has been left out of past textbook,  such as the plight of the Indians.  But,  instead of writing an antithesis,  why can’t we gather all of the FACTUAL information  (without tossing in an opinion),  and add it to the books instead of writing a scathing, dare I say, anti-European-American piece of POS propaganda?  Of course,  that will not happen – not as long as this garbage is eaten up by these horrible extremist college professors and those who worship them.

Yeah...you know who you are.
The following is just one teeny example of the B.S.  perpetrated by these extremists:
"The Europeans were able to conquer America not because of their military genius, or their religious motivation, or their ambition, or their greed. They conquered it by waging unpremeditated biological warfare."
Nice research,  idiot.

How about re-writing this to state something along the lines of : Unbeknownst to the European colonists who settled on the American soil, they brought with them diseases that the natural anti-bodies of the Indians could not fight off.  It was unfortunate that millions of the native peoples died because of this.

Naw...that's too nice,  right?

Here's another extremely biased accusation from the same page:
The scarcity of disease in the Americas was also partly attributable to the basic hygiene practiced by the region's inhabitants. Residents of northern Europe and England rarely bathed, believing it unhealthy, and rarely removed all of their clothing at one time, believing it immodest. The Pilgrims smelled bad to the Indians. Squanto "tried, without success, to teach them to bathe," according to Feenie Ziner, his biographer.
And where did biographer Feenie Ziner receive this information from? 

And Loewen call this "Biological” warfare? Because the Indians supposedly bathed more than the Europeans?

Now,  in looking at this with a bit more reason  (if it is true at all),  in my opinion - at least I admit it - it could be that because the Indians did not wear much clothing and the Europeans did,  of course the smell might be a bit stronger.  Also,  I am sure the European's odor was different than the Indians,  hence the idea that they smelled bad.  This is common sense, folks!

Or how about maybe we should just add the cannibalism tradition of a few tribes,  maybe for fun,  right?  For it is known that war prisoners were ruthlessly tortured and...eaten;  in the Algonquin tongue the word Mohawk actually means  "flesh-eater."  There is even a story that the Indians in neighboring Iroquois territory would flee their homes upon sight of just a small band of Mohawks.

But let's not talk about that---we'd rather speak on how bad Europeans smelled.

Again...idiots.

(To read more about Native American tribal tortures,  click HERE)

Another very easy target author Howard Zinn jumps on is the whole Columbus issue.  Instead of admiring the greatness it took to navigate across the Atlantic Ocean in the 15^th century - and instead of understanding life in the 15th century - Zinn chose to concentrate on condemning Columbus as if he should have known better.  Columbus should have thought the way we do today!  Hey---a little secret:  he didn't cross the ocean until 1492.  It was a different world then with a different thought process.  And he did nothing that was illegal. We know now that was what accepted then is certainly not welcome or accepted today,  thank God,  but in his era, one was either a slave,  a slave owner,  or one of the very few in between.  He was a man of his time,  like you are today.   Whites,  Blacks,  Asians,  Indians…all were slaves or kept slaves at one time or another.  Accept it.  Get over it.  

You want the truth?  Then print the whole truth.

But that means you have to do research rather than print your feel-good opinions.

So,  the question is,  why would anyone want to spew crap like these authors do?  

To push an agenda?  

I don't know...maybe in some people's minds two wrongs do  make a right,  I’m sure.  

Me? 

I’d rather get the truth – as close to the whole truth as possible.  PC filled agenda'd books like this from idiots like Loewen and Zinn are,  in my opinion,  anti-American drivel,  which fits in perfectly with the mindset of the  "woke"  far left extremists;  it’s  “in”  to knock everything American and anyone who disagrees with them,  everything patriotic,  and everything traditional.

Now,  instead of fixating on changing our history books to make you feel good,  why not,  for example,  go after the modern slave trade that still persists today.

It's happening in some form are every continent.

You know,  I am a proud American.  Do I like and agree with all that is going on in this country today?  Of course not.  But,  I also look at the positive and good.  Yes,  contrary to what you may hear,  there is a lot of good going on in our society today.  Of course,  just stating that I am a proud American will give many the jitters.  They will automatically pigeon-hole me with George Bush and the like.  They will also think that,  duh…I’m not the smartest because,  duh,  I am patriotic. 

Believe what you want – you’re going to anyhow.

And if you do,  you are the idiot.

.