One question I get asked quite frequently is "would you live in the past if you could?"
Hmmm...good question. We can romanticize the past through tales in books or through movies - take the best of the 19th century and tell of that joyous part of life that makes the 19th century look so wonderful. By reading social history books, we can tell how long it took to travel from here to there by horse and carriage, how folks worked together as a family to grow the crops so they had plenty to eat come harvest time, made by hand whatever furniture needed to make life more comfortable, had no worries about paying the electric or cable bill...
We can also hear about the not so good part of Victorian living - sickness, rough daily occupations and working conditions, going to the dentist, mortality rates, pollution...
And, when the period book or movie is done we can 're-enter' the 21st century: cooling off in an air-conditioned car or house, maybe go for a dip in a pool, drive through a local Burger King, throw on a Green Day c d, and relax.
When one compares the past to the present, my guess would be that the greater majority of common folk would choose the present time in which to live.
I used to feel that way as well - and, I still do to a certain extent. But, the more 'time' moves on, the less comfortable I feel living in this day and age, and the greater my wish to be able to travel through time to my favorite era, that, of course, being the mid-19th century, has become.
Even with all of its roughness, I feel the Victorians had 'cornered the market' on dealing with life. They put their lives on the line daily - they accepted everything that came their way - good and bad - and gave glory to God no matter what.
I'm not like that. I try to be, but my mindset is of the 21st...well, OK, the 20th century, and we of this era in human history have become the stressful nation - a nation of want and need of material goods, not acceptance for what we already have; a society of Doubting Thomases instead of a nation of faith; a nation of blatant in-your-face screw-you-if-you-don't-like-it leftists instead of respecting our neighbor and fellow man for a belief in tradition.
In the 19th century - heck, even throughout most of the 20th century - people knew the difference between right and wrong. Today, folks instead will state, "what's wrong for one person might be right for another." They will claim there are no absolutes when it comes to such a "gray" area. That everything is pretty much 'right.'
They will also blame whatever and whoever they can for their own wrong doings (do you here me, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick?).
Disciplining your child for being bad was not considered a crime - yes, it's true, contrary to the revisionist historians (who love to place today's societal ills upon our 19th century counterparts), kids back then were more disciplined and respectful. They knew the difference between right and wrong, good and bad. They knew the importance of having and practicing religious faith in their daily lives; the importance of family; the need for hard work in order to survive. Most did not feel they were owed anything by anybody, especially the government. They persevered through thick and thin and survived.
I guess my original answer to would I go back if I could go back in time was wrong - I am going to have to say "no, I would not."
Why?
Because, being a child of our modern times, I could never measure up to those wonderful survivors of the 19th century.
God Bless Them, and God Help Us.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Thursday, March 6, 2008
The Incarceration Nation (according to the Detroit Free Press)
The U.S. prison population, the world's largest, has grown nearly eightfold over the past 35 years and now costs taxpayers at least $60 billion a year. An eye-popping report released last week by the Pew Center on the States found that, for the first time, more than one in every 100 American adults is in jail or prison. And that figure doesn't count the hundreds of thousands of people who are on probation and parole.
What is the goal here? Is there a smarter way to get there? What are we as a society getting in return for all this money? What is this massive and growing penal system accomplishing?
This is from today's opinion page from the Detroit Free Press newspaper. There are lots of folks discussing this 'problem' in our country. And many of those speaking about ways to curb this situation are looking every which way but the right way to cure this problem. It's not hard - you take away the morals and values that most folks have lived by for centuries and what do you wind up with? Well, just look at today's society. That's what you end up with.
Please read the following I copied from a book by Juanita Leischt, a social historian of the Civil War era:
"Many modern Americans consider themselves to be 'basically good,' and do not spend time berating themselves for being 'sinful.' Americans of the mid-19th century might have disagreed. One key characteristic of mid 19th century Americans was an adherence to strict individual ethics. Most people lived their daily lives in constant confrontation with 'good' and 'evil.' Often, they had daily and personal involvement in religious practices.
And yet, people are in denial in that the few things I listed could actually cure much of society's ills.
Oh, wait - I'm not an accredited anything - what do I know? Let's listen to the same people who global warming.
Folks, unless we collectively change the way we live our daily lives, this country has only seen the beginning of 'hell on earth.'
What is the goal here? Is there a smarter way to get there? What are we as a society getting in return for all this money? What is this massive and growing penal system accomplishing?
This is from today's opinion page from the Detroit Free Press newspaper. There are lots of folks discussing this 'problem' in our country. And many of those speaking about ways to curb this situation are looking every which way but the right way to cure this problem. It's not hard - you take away the morals and values that most folks have lived by for centuries and what do you wind up with? Well, just look at today's society. That's what you end up with.
Please read the following I copied from a book by Juanita Leischt, a social historian of the Civil War era:
"Many modern Americans consider themselves to be 'basically good,' and do not spend time berating themselves for being 'sinful.' Americans of the mid-19th century might have disagreed. One key characteristic of mid 19th century Americans was an adherence to strict individual ethics. Most people lived their daily lives in constant confrontation with 'good' and 'evil.' Often, they had daily and personal involvement in religious practices.
Make no mistake, there was crime and unethical behavior in mid 19th century America. The difference between this culture and that of modern Americans lies not so much in what people actually did (and still do), but in what was expected of them. Americans were expected to have a well defined and consistent sense of right and wrong. From infancy, mid 19th century Americans were bombarded with moral teaching...children were taught that right was right, and wrong was wrong, even if wrong was done for a good cause. The lesson that ethics were absolute - and did not change depending on the situation - was applied in day-to-day lives of adults (and) children.
Another attitude shared by most mid 19th century Americans was the tendency to set very long-term goals, and to live life with those goals in mind. Religions emphasized the afterlife, and many Americans lived life with a view to their eternal future..."
And yet, people are in denial in that the few things I listed could actually cure much of society's ills.
Oh, wait - I'm not an accredited anything - what do I know? Let's listen to the same people who global warming.
Folks, unless we collectively change the way we live our daily lives, this country has only seen the beginning of 'hell on earth.'
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Average Lifespan Misinformation in History
(For an update on this posting, please click here)
OK, let's get rid of this misnomer that "the average lifespan of humans in 1863 was 39 years old," or "...in 1900 was 43 years old," or whatever other fallacy the emails or statisticians say. I mean, it sounds like if you were 39 in the 1860's you had one foot in the grave, for Pete's sake!
Well, let's clear this mess up once and for all:
In general, folks in the 18th and 19th centuries lived nearly as long as we do today. Yes, it's true. If one would take the time to read journals of the period, or census records of long ago they would find a good majority of adults living to a ripe old age.
So why is this false information being passed around as fact? Because, technically, it is true - the average life span in 1862 may have been 39 years of age. The average lifespan. Now, take into account that, up until the mid 20th century, the infant mortality rate was pretty high. Er...I mean, very high. In some areas nearly one out of every two infants died before their first birthday. And then, from one year old to five years that percentage dropped. From five to 10 it dropped again. And so on and so forth. In other words, the older you got, the chances are you would probably see life into your 60's or 70's or even your 80's, just like today. Of course, death for women during childbirth was quite high, but we, in our modern day, have been able to prevent that situation from happening almost completely.
Yes, people did die of heart attacks, consumption (TB), cancer, pneumonia, and measles. People today die of cancer, heart attacks, and pneumonia as well. But, where 100 years ago they had consumption, we have aids. We also have a higher murder rate per capita here in the 21st century in comparison (here are some stats about this particular comment from the history news network (http://hnn.us/articles/871.html) :
OK, let's get rid of this misnomer that "the average lifespan of humans in 1863 was 39 years old," or "...in 1900 was 43 years old," or whatever other fallacy the emails or statisticians say. I mean, it sounds like if you were 39 in the 1860's you had one foot in the grave, for Pete's sake!
Well, let's clear this mess up once and for all:
In general, folks in the 18th and 19th centuries lived nearly as long as we do today. Yes, it's true. If one would take the time to read journals of the period, or census records of long ago they would find a good majority of adults living to a ripe old age.
So why is this false information being passed around as fact? Because, technically, it is true - the average life span in 1862 may have been 39 years of age. The average lifespan. Now, take into account that, up until the mid 20th century, the infant mortality rate was pretty high. Er...I mean, very high. In some areas nearly one out of every two infants died before their first birthday. And then, from one year old to five years that percentage dropped. From five to 10 it dropped again. And so on and so forth. In other words, the older you got, the chances are you would probably see life into your 60's or 70's or even your 80's, just like today. Of course, death for women during childbirth was quite high, but we, in our modern day, have been able to prevent that situation from happening almost completely.
Yes, people did die of heart attacks, consumption (TB), cancer, pneumonia, and measles. People today die of cancer, heart attacks, and pneumonia as well. But, where 100 years ago they had consumption, we have aids. We also have a higher murder rate per capita here in the 21st century in comparison (here are some stats about this particular comment from the history news network (http://hnn.us/articles/871.html) :
By the 18th Century, colonial Americans were the most heavily armed people in the world," yet murders were "rare" and "few" involved guns "despite their wide availability."
American homicide remained low until the 1840s. Relatively modern rapid-fire weapons only became common after the Civil War when hundreds of thousands of military surplus revolvers and lever action rifles were sold. Yet, far from rising in the post-Civil War era, homicide fell off sharply from the 1870s to 1900 -- despite the 1870s mass marketing of cheap "Saturday Night Specials."
Anyhow, what it boils down to is that if you ever see any of these average lifespan stats, take them with a grain of salt and put the whole thing into its perspective.Tuesday, February 26, 2008
A New Day Yesterday...
I have been diligently working on my time-travel story these last couple of months. No, I haven't added any new chapters, but I have improved (considerably, if you ask me) what I had previously written. Much more depth, description (especially the first couple of chapters), and realism. I really would like my little story to be as accurate and authentic as if it actually happened. Therefore, I have been finding it necessary to do extensive research to give the reader (if there are any beyond my very good friends) a total visual of what my characters experience.
I must say, it's been fun writing this little tale and I look forward to continuing the chapters.
I must say, it's been fun writing this little tale and I look forward to continuing the chapters.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
The Angry White Man
I recently received the following (written by Gary Hubbell, although I added a few of my own comments) from a friend.
Yup, it describes me (mostly) pretty well.
Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical Christians.
There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.
His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field. In many cases, he is an independent businessman and employs several people. He pays more than his share of taxes and works hard.
The victimhood syndrome buzzwords — “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” — don’t resonate with him. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him. He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the company Christmas party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a beautiful wedding.
He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.
The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and will defend the lives of the unborn.
The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina — he got his people together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter.
His last name and religion don’t matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American.
He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to watch Civil War movies, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, spend time with his wife and kids, re-enact the Civil War, change his own oil and build things. He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch.
Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man, not a dishrag. If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and says “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am.”
He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.
He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.
Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don’t pay taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.
He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It’s not that she is a woman. It’s that she is who she is. It’s the liberal victim groups she panders to, the “poor me” attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves.
There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George Bush.
He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum.
Yup, it describes me (mostly) pretty well.
Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical Christians.
There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.
His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field. In many cases, he is an independent businessman and employs several people. He pays more than his share of taxes and works hard.
The victimhood syndrome buzzwords — “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” — don’t resonate with him. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him. He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the company Christmas party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a beautiful wedding.
He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.
The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and will defend the lives of the unborn.
The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina — he got his people together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter.
His last name and religion don’t matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American.
He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to watch Civil War movies, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, spend time with his wife and kids, re-enact the Civil War, change his own oil and build things. He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch.
Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man, not a dishrag. If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and says “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am.”
He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.
He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.
Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don’t pay taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.
He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It’s not that she is a woman. It’s that she is who she is. It’s the liberal victim groups she panders to, the “poor me” attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves.
There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George Bush.
He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
The History Channel
Can someone please tell me the difference between The History Channel and the Discovery Channel? You can't, can you? Thought so. Why do we have a channel dedicated solely to history but there is very little actual history to be found on it? Look at the shows they have scheduled: Ice Truckers, The Universe, Shockwave, UFO Hunters, Monsterquest, Gangland, Human Weapon, and on and on...
The only show that remains of the Civil War era is Civil War Journal. Do you know when that is on? 7:00 a.m. on Tuesday mornings! How about a Revolutionary War Journal? A War of 1812 Journal? A French and Indian War Journal?
How about a show on America's museums? Greenfield Village, Colonial Williamsburg, Connor Prairie, Plimouth Plantation, Old Sturbridge Village, just to name a very few. In fact, upon a Google search, I found each state in our union has wonderful museums - outdoor and indoor - that are deserving of national recognition. Why can't The History Channel have a series on something like this?
How about everyday life as lived by the average person from the 19th, 18th, 17th, or before centuries? From their occupations and tools to clothing to personal hygiene to etiquette to mourning practices - the subject matter is endless.
How about a series on restoration that would be broadcast in the evening?
How about anything before World War 2, and especially before the 20th century???
It does not take a highly paid program director to come up with such ideas. And, please don't tell me that no one would watch. That line is a load of crap.
Am I alone on my opinions of The History Channel?
Friday, February 15, 2008
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
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!).
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.
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?
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 15th 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.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)