@mesonoxian , I think the root of the issue you're having with invictus and the others is that you're using different definitions for the same terms and not making that clear. I'm pretty sure when you say:
What they hear is "I support a 1619 project style revisionist outlook that uses history as a tool in service of contemporary political aims", because that's what people who say the same sort of thing frequently do.
Particularly when you go on to stay stuff like this:
Sally Hemings changes nothing about the Declaration or Jefferson's ideals and what they mean to us today, or how those "high minded sentiments" have shaped and inspired the country. At most, she proves thst Jefferson was not some kind of saint and that he didn't live up to his own beliefs, which would be much more important if anyone actually believed that, which they don't. This is something most any history book will point out given the civil war stemmed from that conflict between ideals and reality, and the founders grapples with it at the time as well.
Put bluntly, ms hemings is far less real than those ideals, because those ideals shaped a nation and she didn't, and your vague assertions to the contrary do not convince me otherwise.
As for this bit:
I'm going to have to ask you to prove this. Go call up your local school board, ask what textbooks they use and what thier curriculum is, and then let me know. Because in every history book I've ever read that covers the period, those events were discussed, and I do not believe you when you say your local schools exclude them.
I would assume she was referring to stuff like the battle of Blair Mountain and the like. Which. Contrary to her claims, are taught in schools, along with related issues like company towns and other dirty moves by turn of the century corporations. However, they're not dwelled upon, because in the end they weren't very important.
[/QUOTE]
Ms Hemmings was a real human being coerced to have sex with a married man who owned her and her children. That is super fucked up. I don't think you can unpick the "Jeffersonian ideal" from the fact that it was built on some pretty heinous practices and was never intended to extend full equality to all people. That doesn't mean there is necessarily nothing of value in it. (I have other critiques of liberalism) but it does mean the program as we inherited was far from the ideal, and if you see value in it, acknowledging those ideals weren't lived up to is a first step to making it better.
Maybe the history of violent anti-racist resistance to the Klan and union conflict against mining companies are being taught to the kids these days, but they weren't teaching it when I went to school. And I was in honors classes with an entire semester devoted to Tennessee history.
Anarchism if successful would just likely lead to new state apparatuses appearing, to handle disputes between different syndicates or communes, protect against foreign or counter revolutionary attack, handle issues of commerce etc...
It would start with people in charge of these issues elected and then slowly acquiring a state like character, even if they were constantly rotated out.
Eventually-new states would form and new forms of authority. Or perhaps simply old ones. One might argue anarchism simply crashes the car to only reinvent the wheel and start driving again.
Not really, but given that you are an actual fascist I don't feel like attempting to explain the finer points of anarchist theory is a bit of a pearls before swine situation. No offense. Some offense, actually
George Floyd has already become one, and it's barely been half a year since its death. I think that's a good illustrative example. The left has built him up to be a hero and the ultimate victim of an evil and oppressive system, while in reality he was a violent, criminal drug addict who left his wife and kid to fend for themselves and held a pregnant woman at gunpoint while he robbed her.
George Floyd wasn't a hero. You just don't have to be a hero to deserve better than he got. If only perfect people deserve decent treatment then we need to toss the whole concept of justice, because it doesn't apply to any of us.
You are not clever and posting smug pictures means nothing. You want me to die mad now and I won't. Dying years from now means nothing cause it has nothing to do with you. And classic leftist bullshit about always being the rebel, I won't fall for it.
A load of bullshit cause the left have shown that they don't care about facts and all they care about is feelings and guilting people only to then do those same acts themselves and trying to manipulate history is also what they do.
I didn't actually intend to come back to this thread (or site) having made the comment I signed up to make. But something occurred to me while I was working and I wanted to share it. I don't expect a reasonable or civil reply or for you to change your mind. I'm just going to say it anyway.
A recurring motif in your replies (and several other people's) is that the leftists are trying to "guilt" people. And that confused me, since that really isn't something anybody seriously studying history cares about. And then I realized, it is because you assume that this is about you. If you hear something, and it makes you feel bad, your assumption is that this message was for you, and its effect on you was the point of the message.
But that isn't usually going to be the case. The feelings of people on the right aren't a major concern and there is no benefit in feelings guilty. The fact a message makes you feel bad doesn't mean the messenger is trying to hurt your feelings. There is value in seeing our history with clear eyes. Because it gives history and heritage back to people who have had their culture erased, because it makes us aware of the impacts of the past on the present, so that we can deal with them more honestly, and because truth is simply good for itself.
I see a lot of talk from right wingers about "owning the libs" and trolling and I wonder if that is part of the disconnect. Because how the right feels is pretty insignificant to most people on the left. Of course we're human, and a certain amount of vindictiveness happens, especially against people who have done a lot of harm. But trying to hurt the feelings of the average Trump supporter is not something that most people seem to care a whole lot about. It is a much more result and fact oriented discussion most of the time.
Anyhoo, just something I wanted to share. Take it sleazy.
