 sj |
||
|
||
Historical Revisionism?
|
|
|
Subject: Historical Revisionism? From: GUEST,Petr Date: 12 Apr 01 - 06:00 PM This might belong in the political correctness thread but I thought Id throw this out for discussion. The British Columbia Govt is considering removing a mural painted in the 1930's in the Provincial Legislature depicting interaction between Europeans and the aboriginal or (first nations people as they are now called) in a way that the first nations find offensive. Namely, one scene shows 18th& early 19th cent. Europeans (fully dressed) trading with the natives (some of the women) are bare breasted and are carrying fish in baskets to trade. The first nations people are offended by the bare breast and the (supposedly) subservient way they are portrayed along side the Europeans. The current govt. is proposing removing the murals and putting them somewhere else (a fairly expensive and difficult undertaking) as opposed to just painting them over. Some people raise the point that by removing the murals we are covering up the racism that did in fact exist (up until the 20's I believe the practice of Potlatches - was banned as well as children were placed in residential schools away from their parents and the host of other problems that brought about.) Nevertheless, the artist who painted the murals had a deep respect for the first nations people, and while they are probably done in a romanticized style (common in the 30s) they are not necessarily inaccurate. Historians say that in hot weather sometimes women did go bare breasted. The point is do they belong in the legislature or should they be destroyed? moved? and are we covering up the past?
|
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: Amos Date: 12 Apr 01 - 07:36 PM What -- they didn't eat fish, or use them for trade? They didn't have breasts? They really wore blue jeans and lumberjack shirts and the depiction is therefore offensive? I don't see the offense, from your description. If the women there and then were smart enough to go bare-breasted in hot weather, and the civilization was decent enough to let them do so without risk, then it is a laudable thing to show this superiority in the halls of government, and the whiteys should just take their lumps, and strive tyo catch up. A |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: Chicken Charlie Date: 12 Apr 01 - 07:49 PM Petr/Peter/Pete-- I'm sorry to learn that our northern neighbor experiences what to me is a very wrong-headed approach to the past. I am knee deep in this argument down here. (I do traditional music in a "living history" role re. American Civil War, & I'm tired of being told that that war was not about slavery. If I hear the line, "My ancestors never owned slaves, of course," one more time, I'm going to do something rude. I guess according to the revisionist version of the ante-bellum South, nobody owned slaves but two good old boys in Birmingham, who had two million apiece. They loaned them out come cotton-chopping time.) All that by way of saying, all I like about the situation you describe is the 'First People' handle. I like that better than "Native American." What's moving the mural supposed to accomplish?? If it were offensive, would it be any LESS offensive somewhere else? If some people are capable of seeing it and not misunderstanding it, are they not also capable of explaining it to their kids? Sounds like the mural shows a part of reality, and I think it's healthier to face reality, pleasant or not, and to say, "That's how it was, so we have to be careful now," rather than to be a blindfold pollyanna and pretend that the world is, was, and ever shall be perfect, Amen. I predict a long thread coming; I need another cup of coffee. Chicken Charlie |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: DougR Date: 12 Apr 01 - 07:53 PM If they move them or destroy them, they are sticking their heads in the sand. Many practices and attitudes in the past are not ones that we, today, approve of but one cant' simply say they didn't exist. Recorded history should not be changed to please the PC crowd unless new discoveries of facts are made that would alter what had originally been reported. My thinking anyway. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: kendall Date: 12 Apr 01 - 07:56 PM Charlie, the fact is, most people didn't own slaves. Even in that time, a healthy male slave was worth upwards of $1000.00. And thats not 2001 dollars! |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: Jon Freeman Date: 12 Apr 01 - 08:02 PM Transferred from other (duplicate) thread:
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: mousethief Date: 12-Apr-01 - 06:40 PM Perhaps if we destroy all proof of inequities in the past, we can create a world in which inequities will have no historical touchstone, and thus take us by storm when they recur, leaving us no way of knowing how they were dealt with, and in some cases eliminated, in the past. Alex
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? Well said, Mousethief. I used four times as much verbage and did half as good of job. You crystallize exactly what history does for us if it is taught rationally and fearlessly. If you drink, go buy yourself a beer. CC
|
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: Troll Date: 12 Apr 01 - 09:22 PM Kendall, thank you. troll |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: Jim the Bart Date: 12 Apr 01 - 10:02 PM Revisionism is intellectual emasculation. People wish to rewrite the past? Hah! They should be as concerned about the future - or better yet, learn to live in the present tense. But then they'd have to shoulder responsiblity for themselves. And that's way too scary. . . |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: JedMarum Date: 12 Apr 01 - 10:10 PM from an old Firesign Theatre album, I remember the line, "Have you seen the past? Oh you must, they're cleanning it!" |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: Banjer Date: 12 Apr 01 - 10:11 PM Charlie, prepare to do something rude! Originally the war was NOT about slavery, but about States Rights. Slavery did not become an issue untill 1863 when Lincoln called for another 300,000 troops and the citizens wanted no part of it. When Lincoln saw his request for more troops was not popular he then decided to make slavery an issue to gain public sympathy. |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: jets Date: 12 Apr 01 - 10:19 PM The issue was State rights but it was the issue of slavery that brought the issue of rights into question. |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: Sourdough Date: 13 Apr 01 - 01:31 AM Despite our best attempts to generalize about the motives of millins of people, they refuse to fit into our one size fits all views of history. So, as an antidote, I will generalize about the Civil War, too. THe difference is I will try to do it with with slightly smaller groups. I may not have a lot of luck though. Tolstoi spent a thousand pages exploring such themes in War and Peace and I don't think the answers are clear there, either. As I understand it, the war was about different things to different people depending on our socio-economic and geographic position. For large numbers of people, it was about states rights and there were important issues at stake. For others, it was about slavery. There were people who were risking their health, fortune and lives out of a sincere belief that slavery was evil well over a generation before the war began. Tens of thousands of other young men from the North went off to fight in what they saw as a romantic crusade. Tens of thousands of other young men fought to keep an invader out of their homeland. And yet another group, emotional and cultural descendants of the Cavaliers, took arms against the industrial, grimy, mercantile society to the North Sourdough |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: mousethief Date: 13 Apr 01 - 01:50 AM Thank you, Chicken Charlie. I was afraid I had mangled the syntax so badly people wouldn't get my point (it's a horrible run-on sentence!). Actually I drink everything BUT beer. Can I buy me a margarita instead? Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: sledge Date: 13 Apr 01 - 05:37 AM If History is ever to be revised then it should be done only in the light of hard data, such as something new being dug up or of documents seeing the light of day for the first time since they were written. A change based on emotional responses I see as meaningless. Our mind sets are a lot differant to those of our ancestors, to impose our standards on those of yesteryear is arrogance of the highest order. If there are those who don't want to know about unpleasant or controversial episodes in the past, simple, don't read the books or watch the shows on TV, demonstrate personal responsibilty. Just don't demand or expect me to go along with it. Rant over. Sledge |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: kendall Date: 13 Apr 01 - 06:22 AM The past is prolog. |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: jets Date: 13 Apr 01 - 08:46 AM Sourdough said it all.
|
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: kendall Date: 13 Apr 01 - 08:53 AM According to everything I have read, the soldiers from Maine did not go to war to free the slaves. They went to preserve the union. |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: LR Mole Date: 13 Apr 01 - 09:00 AM I fear the future is Nut Log. (Except in the Philippines, where it's Tagalog.) |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: GUEST,Roll&Go-C Date: 13 Apr 01 - 09:12 AM No, you're all wrong! The Europeans should have their clothes painted out and their fleshy tones painted in. |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: Kim C Date: 13 Apr 01 - 10:22 AM I think the mural ought to stay, as an example of early 20th century art if nothing else. Regarding "revisionism" - the research of history is an ongoing process. New information is discovered on a regular basis, so yes, we do revise history as we learn more than we knew before. Sometimes it is hard to let go of long-held ideas about the past, even when new facts show those ideas are clearly wrong. But of course, we all know that history is written by the victors. |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: LR Mole Date: 13 Apr 01 - 11:04 AM I fear the future is Nut Log. (Except in the Philippines, where it's Tagalog.) |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: Sourdough Date: 13 Apr 01 - 12:19 PM I think that most historians would agree that history gets rewritten all the time. They might go further and say that history must be rewritten by each generation. For many people, this is a hard thought to grasp but each generation rewrites history in terms of its interests, beliefs and the way things worked out. Those Mudcatters who are old enough can remember this happening. During and directly after his presidency, Eisenhower was regarded as a somewhat limited man, intellectually, partially because he had unusual speach habits, but the more we learn about his Presidency and see how his ideas helped to shape what came after, the more he is appreciated. His warning of the growing power of the military industrial complex (and I believe he coined that term) rings true today. Truman, I think it is safe to say has risen in the estimation of Presidential historians (and they are the ones who shape opinion by their books directly and by their teaching)from mediocre to one of the most successful and important presidents of his century. It works the other way too. John Kennedy has been sinking in the estimation of many historians. His personality shines bright as do his ideals but his importance is being re-evaluated. His treatment of women, valued in our time as a touchstone in a way that would have been inconceivable in 1960 is probably a part of this. James Garfield was considered at the time of his death to be up there just under Lincoln. Now most people would be hard-pressed to name two achievements of a man who was regarded as one of the great presidents of the 19th century. History gets re-evaluated in the light of the interests of the society of that generation. If there is a swing to conservatism in society as a whole, those presidents who exemplify the ideals of that point of view are going to rise up in degree of appreciation. This does not mean that facts change, just that emphasis changes. This is different than historical revisionism in a totalitarian country where once great leaders become non-persons, erased from history books because they no longer fit in with the needs of the present ruler of the country. Under such academic constraints, where people from the past have been rewritten from history, it is impossible to study the new vesion of history and learn how the present evolved from the past. The lessons of history are lost to that society and it will pay a price. Sourdough |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: Mrrzy Date: 13 Apr 01 - 12:59 PM History has just as much right to be revised as does any other manifestation of memory. Memories don't exist, they are recreated every time you remember something. History doesn't exist either. The past exists (don't quibble about tenses, please), but history isn't the past, it's about the past. And what we say about the past changes, as it should. We have one slant one year, and another the next. The trick is for the revision to make things MORE accurate, not less. For example, it used to be history that early American settlers "made friends with" the Indians. Now, it's history that early Americans practically extinguished the Native Americans. Yes, it's revisionist. No, it's not a bad thing since it is actually closer to the past. Pretending that aborigibal folks didn't wear immodest (by contemporary European standards) dress nor bow down to their conquerors is not. So I'd vote for Keep The Mural And Teach Your Children Well. |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: GUEST,Don Meixner Date: 13 Apr 01 - 01:26 PM I have to admit that in this case I could care less about the history of that area and whether revisionism is occurring. The history with a few considerations will be pretty much the same as when the French and English first met the Onondagas, or the Abenaki, or the Hurons. Trade occurred some people were treated fairly others weren't. Some white men behaved like savages and some Aboriginal Americains behaved in a stoic civilized manner. All the stuff of fanciful memory and Hollywood. I am concerned with the very notion of destroying a piece of art. Composition that is of a style no longer found except in civic meeting areas, libraries, entries and monuments. Ofcourse its easy for me to sit a continent away and call people in another country vandals for what is clearly their business. People of this same stripe once wanted the Pieta hidden away to remove from display the nakedness of Christ. Behind a wall of birch panneling and red flocked wall paper is a mural that surrounds the great room and pub of an old hotel in Elbridge, NY . The center piece is over the fire place mantel and is a depiction of a man on horse back taking a tankard of ale from a serving girl below a sign that says "The Wayside Inn". The mural survived a fire but not the 1970's Now covered with a mirror this art by an unknown but talented muralist is lost forever because we entered the age of sports bars and auto racing. Half the walls are gone to allow for big TVs and and more seating space. Civility and charm has gone the way of the DoDo so we can watch a bunch of guys stick there foot in it and turn left. Don |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: Chicken Charlie Date: 13 Apr 01 - 01:33 PM Mousethief: Please feel free to upgrade. Banjer: Sourdough has a good thought, but here's a series of genuine facts. In 1850, Southern congressman opposed the admission of California as a "free" state, even though that's what the Californians wanted. The Southern stand was AGAINST states' rights and FOR slavery. In the early 1850's, several northern states wished to nullify the Fugitive Slave Law; the South demanded that the Fed use all its power to compel obedience. Again, the South stood against States' Rights and for slavery. When it was Kansas' turn to seek admission, armed Southrons camped there to ensure a "slave" majority in the state constitutional convention. AGAINST states rights; for slavery. Election of 1860: get real. Douglas was the states' rights man. He called it popular sovereignty. He only carried some border states. Breckenridge (aka Breckinridge) was the slavery candidate, demanding slavery in the territories regardless of the feelings of the people there. AGAINST states rights; for SLAVERY. Or why is the big bone of contention the Fugitive SLAVE Law, not the Fugitive STATES RIGHTS Law?? Sorry for warping this thread. Not sorry for citing the above unimpeachable facts. Can you name a state's right other than the right to own slaves that was ever in jeopardy?? C.C. |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: kendall Date: 13 Apr 01 - 02:37 PM Their right to print money? |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: Chicken Charlie Date: 13 Apr 01 - 02:54 PM Kendall-- Never had that one brought up before. It will be several days before I will be able to look at the Const. & respond, but in the meantime--was that an issue in the 1850's?? I am curious to know more. (I thought we tried state currencies at one point and gave them up as a bad idea.) More for everybody: All ye who harp upon how few the slaveowners were need to find and read William Cash, "The Mind of the South," wherein it is argued that one does not have to own slaves in order to support the institution of slavery. That many northern men did not like Africans enough to risk their lives to free them--and many did not--does not mean that the war would have started had not the South armed in the defense of its "peculiar institution." |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: GUEST,petr Date: 13 Apr 01 - 02:59 PM ONe point that I want to add to this discussion is that while the 1st nations people find the depiction of women in an unclothed and subservient manner offensive - native womens groups still have a long way to go in order to get equal representations within their own society. (of course I have no inside knowledge of this but this was in the news couple of years ago, when aboriginal womens groups raised this issue to the primarily male leadership. (many of the chiefs are hereditary). The second point is that to a certain extent 1st nations rights are a fairly big topic in BC right now as there is an upcoming provincial election and an extensive native land claim agreement (the Nisgaa treaty) which has been under negotiation off and on for a 100 years. Someone said in an earlier thread that he didnt care much about local history and that interaction between Europeans and the natives was pretty much the same all over North America, which is not quite true. The lands of the natives on the west coast (of Canada) as well as the Inuit & Dene in the Northern Territories were among the last to be settled and consequently the land claim settlements for these groups are better than any settlements on the east coast of North America. (in some cases there was no treaty). It is likely that the Provincial Liberals will win the next election and they want the Nisgaa treaty put to a province wide referendum (which most likely will mean its rejection). This also reminds me of what some see as a sort of cultural censorship story - the UBC museum of anthropology used to have a historian explain the story behind totem poles and carvings. This was similar to a family coat of arms but under the native tradition no one other than a member of the family can tell that story, for someone else to describe the totem pole would be would violate their beliefs. So they protested and whenever the museum staff explained the carvings and totems they would be in their face and say "you cant tell that story its against our religion" so now the museum staff just explain that they cant relate the meaning behind the art. My own feeling is that while Id like to respect their tradition, I am interested in that history and if the family members die out so does the history if no one else can talk about it. Ultimately I find the destruction of art for political or religious reasons abhorrent rather like the 1000 year old Buddhas destroyed by the Taliban, or for that matter religious art destroyed in the reformation. Should we ban Tom Sawyer or stop performing SHowboat because they were written in a different time. |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: Midchuck Date: 13 Apr 01 - 03:17 PM "He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions." Hey, it's the Declaration of Independence. Must be true. If that document isn't valid, then we're still a British colony, and anything we do wrong is the Queen's fault. Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: Kim C Date: 13 Apr 01 - 03:41 PM I think there was that pesky Tarriff of Abominations in the 1830s that didn't have anything to do with slavery. It had to do with Southern merchants being able to sell their goods to whomever they pleased (i.e., Europe). It's a really funny thing - I have read a lot of diaries and letters and I have yet to come across ONE that mentions fighting for or against slavery. As a matter of fact, one woman wrote to her brother, a soldier in the UNION army, that he should bring her home a n****r to wait on her. But whatever. |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: Chicken Charlie Date: 13 Apr 01 - 04:06 PM Kim C.-- The Tariff of Abominations is a great starting point for a Southern argument, but follow it thru. A minor nit-pick is that it in no way kept the South from selling wherever they wished--they could ALWAYS sell cotton abroad, except for the Embargo of about 1810 or so, and that applied to everybody. What the T. of A. really did was make ANY US CONSUMER pay a tariff on a European import or else buy a slightly cheaper but less well made product from an American factory. Again, the T. of A. penalized ALL American consumers for the benefit of ALL American factory owners. The South complained more than the North because they had fewer factories. Also, you need to explain how the 1828 tariff situation caused a war to break out in 1861. If you look at subsequent tariff schedules, I think you will see that the South had a less valid gripe in 1861, because after Calhoun et al complained, changes were made. Again: The acknowledged fact that many damnyankees thought they were fighting for the Union doesn't fully state the case. The North fought to preserve the Union from men who wished to dissolve it so that they could continue to enjoy the fruits of slave labor, whether they themselves owned those slaves or not. [A parallel: In 1812, the US fought for "Freedom of the Seas." Did the Brits espouse "Oppression of the Seas?" No, they said they were enforcing the correct concept of citizenship. |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: Lonesome EJ Date: 13 Apr 01 - 04:31 PM I have to disagree with my friend Banjer on the slavery question. From the time of the American Revolution, there was a strong and growing sense of economic and political competition between the sparsely populated, agrarian South, and the more heavily populated and industrial North. The basis of the South's wealth and political strength was the Plantation Economy; vast tracts of land, bulk crops, and cheap (or slave) labor. The Plantation Aristocrats correctly saw that slavery was essential to their economic profitability in this system, and fought tooth and nail in Congress to preserve this right of each state to determine the slavery question on its own. If States' Rights were the avowed reason for the rebellion, slavery indeed lay at the heart of the issue. |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: RichM Date: 13 Apr 01 - 04:43 PM Well, this has turned into adiscussion about aspects of American practices in slavery. I'd like to comment on the original question: about portrayal of British Columbia's natives.
White people's portrayal of amerindians has long been one of either savagery, ignorance, or someone in need of conversion. A white woman of the time would never have been portrayed with bared breasts, for reasons you all know. However, to portray amerindian women in this fashion was an implied condescension to their culture. Not much. |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Apr 01 - 04:56 PM I imagine that if the pro-slavers had had the majority, and attempted to impose slavery throughout the Union, it would have been the anti-slavery people who'd have wanted to secede.
I've never been at all clear what the constitutional situation is regarding secession - is it that there are no circumstances under which a state can secede from the union, and that this was laid down in the constitution? Or was it just that the southern states didn't go through the proper procedure?
So far as I am aware, in all the discussions about the European Union at present, it seems pretty generally agreed that if in the future a country wishes to secede, it will have every right to do so, even though it might be extremely inconvenient. |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: Kim C Date: 13 Apr 01 - 05:57 PM Guess what, though? If you lived in, say, Pennsylvania and wore cotton clothing, or ate rice, you enjoyed the fruits of slave labor too. Or if you owned a textile mill in New York and bought your cotton from Alabama, you not only enjoyed the fruits of slave labor but DEPENDED on it for your own livelihood! There were a lot more people besides Southerners that depended on cheap labor to make a living. You think they were going to give it up that easily? Not to mention the fact that there were plenty of factory riots in New York City because the white immigrants didn't want freedmen coming up there and taking their jobs. Not to mention the fact that Frederick Douglass himself said the worst racism he ever encountered was in the North. Not to mention the fact that early on in the war, Union officers had "contrabands" sent back to their "owners." Sherman found the tagalongs a nuisance and a hindrance. Not to mention the fact that "abolition" did not mean "socioeconomic equality." It wasn't as if runaway or freed slaves had rights the minute they crossed the Mason-Dixon line. They didn't. Maybe they were free in the sense of not being someone's property, but they were not free in the sense of being able to do as they pleased. Personally I am tired of being the Bad Guy just because of where I'm from. But like I said, history is written by the victors, and We Lost. I'm going home for the weekend now. Y'all have a happy Easter. Cheers ----- Kim |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: DougR Date: 13 Apr 01 - 06:58 PM Kim C., I was with you in your post further up until you made the statement about history being written by the victors. Revisionist history is written by modern writers who had nothing, I would assume, to do with the conflict (say the Civil War). So what are the victors of? Maybe I'm misssing something though. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: Chicken Charlie Date: 13 Apr 01 - 08:22 PM Kim C--. My family came from Alabama. Truth shouldn't depend on which side of the Mason/Dixon you're on. Southerners are not "the Bad Guys" because of what Jeff Davis did. But don't tell me that Jeff Davis was fighting for Truth, Justice and the American Way. Again, for the nth time, I grant Northern racism and much else that you point to, but none of it changes my contention that the South took arms to perpetuate an inhumane system. Comparisons to Biblical slaves, Classical slaves and "wage slaves" are not totally accurate, because all three of those kinds of people had remedies which were denied to slaves in the US. Maybe while we're gone over the weekend, this thread will die or revert to the possession of the dispossessed who started it to begin with. I for one would like to hear more from Rich M.--Given what you say, Rich, what do we do with the paintings that started this whole thing?? McGrath--I've always distinguished the South's right to seceed from the reasons they gave for doing it. I think they had the right, because I have never come up with any twisted criterion which would justify the American Revolution and not also justify the "Southern War of Independence." I just don't think they're being honest about why they did it. With absolutely no irony intended, I hope everybody has a great weekend. C.C. |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: RichM Date: 14 Apr 01 - 04:21 AM What to do about the paintings? Why, nothing. Eventually, BC whites will understand that it says a whole lot more about them, than about BC native amerindians. And someone just told me that there is a beer that has a subtle chocolate flavor. I hope the Easter Bunny knows these are my two favorite flavors... |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: Sourdough Date: 14 Apr 01 - 12:38 PM Kim C makes apoint worth re-reading. However, that was reality and not perception. People who feel that there was not a major theme of "freeing the slaves" within the Union Army will have to deal with the lyric of the most popular, allmost hym-like anthem that was sung by civillians and troops. The second verse of Julia Howe's anthem today has the capacity for moving people. I have never sung wit without getting a chill up my spine and I always think of the hundreds of thousands who sang it as they went into battle.
In the valley of the lilies I know that there are people here who are familiar with Civil War music. I would guess that there are other lyrics with similar sentiments among the songs loved and sung by the Union soldiers. This is not to say that these same soldiers were not bigoted by today's standards. They "didn't want their daughters to marry one" but many did believe that freedom should be extended to them and that was a big jump forward. Slavery was a real issue not just in the US. Many in the Union Army and at home felt it was time to put an end to it, even at the cost of their lives. Sourdough |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: toadfrog Date: 14 Apr 01 - 04:28 PM As a former historian, I'd like to remark: 1. "Revisionism" is not a dirty word. Some historical revisionists are right, some are wrong, and very frequently they make assertions about which people of good faith may differ. People still argue about who it was that started the First World War. 2. When I was a kid, everyone said the War of the Rebellion was about states rights. That was gospel in the South, and was politely echoed in the history books in the name of reconciliation. I believed it myself. In those days, I thought I was a Southerner. I stopped believing all that shortly after Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (1953), when I began to think about what it meant to be a Southerner. 3. The War of the Rebellion did not come about because of "states' rights." There was no particular threat to any state's rights. If you disagree, tell me what was happening in 1860 that threatened any state's rights? What happened was, a President was elected who did not want to see slavery extended to the Territories. I fail to see what that had to do with "states' rights." Of course, I could be wrong. If so, please enlighten me. |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: GUEST,mgarvey@pacifier.com Date: 15 Apr 01 - 12:05 AM I don't think they should have to put up with people looking at depictions of their grandmothers naked. Put some sort of removable patch up if the mural stays. mg |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: GUEST,Caitrin @ home Date: 15 Apr 01 - 12:29 AM As I don't know nearly enough American history to comment intelligently on the slavery/states' rights issue, I'd just like to respond to toadfrog's comment about "what it means to be a Southerner". I was born in Austin, TX and have spent most of my life in North Carolina. I consider myself a Southerner, without a doubt. I don't think that means I'm a racist, a bigot, a redneck, or any of the other things some people seem to think "being a southerner" implies. To me, being a Southerner means a tradition of hospitality, of good music and good cooking, of helping your neighbors, and of being polite. These are ideals of my family, which has lived in the south since the earliest days of this country. There are definite wrongs that have been done by the people of my region, but many of those things have changed. I like to think of myself as part of the New South, keeping what was good about the Old South and trying to work past the aspects of it that weren't. |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: toadfrog Date: 15 Apr 01 - 05:44 PM Dear Guest: I apoligize for the way that sounded. I dod not mean that Southerners are in some way inferior. I do mean, I grew up around the historical myths that are repeated above, and the symbols that come with them. I respect may things that are Southern, including cooking, music and courtesy. But not the brand of local-patriotism characteristic of some southerners that involves taking pride in bigotry. And I think I had not personally encountered that attitude in many years, so that reading this thread was a bit of a shock. After one year as a freshman at Washington and Lee, I decided that I, personally no longer wished to think of myself as Southern. That was right for me. Subjectively. I did not mean to suggest anyone else needs to see things that way. |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: sophocleese Date: 15 Apr 01 - 07:42 PM I like Rich M's post there. I just think it humourous that when the mural was painted showing bare breasts was meant to imply inferiority whereas now the kind of people I am associated with consider being able to show bare breasts is considered somehow superior. Times change. Perhaps the mural should just stay up a little longer until some white imperialist decides to take it down because he doesn't like to see the implication of superiority in a Native American Woman. I have to admit to some divided feelings around a local monument in our nearby park. The uppermost figure on the central pillar is Samuel de Champlain looking dramatic in flowing cape with his hand on his sword. On the pillars on either side of him are shown, in balancing tableaus, Commerce and Christianity being brought to the natives. In each of these a trader or a priest, standing,is being looked up to by two kneeling native men in loin cloths and a few feathers. Every time I see it part of me shudders at the ideas represented, another part of me admires the fine craftsmanship that went into it, and part of me hopes desperately that we have progressed at least a little beyond that. Short of removing it completely from the park the only other useful idea of what to do with the statue I can come up with is to have Sammy holding a flickering flourescent arrow pointing across the lake to Casino Rama. The steps below it serve as useful seats during the local Scottish Festival. |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: Kim C Date: 16 Apr 01 - 10:44 AM Bare breasts have been painted throughout history and now hang in some of the most esteemed museums in the world as examples of fine classical art. Women have breasts. It's a fact of life. Native women of many countries have gone about topless and some still do! I have always assumed that breasts are held in high regard. Am I seriously disillusioned here? |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: mousethief Date: 16 Apr 01 - 11:38 AM Well, breasts held high are in high regard, anyway. Cult of youth and all that. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: Kim C Date: 16 Apr 01 - 03:06 PM You mean those ladies in the National Geographic don't count?!? ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: DougR Date: 16 Apr 01 - 03:20 PM Well, I like 'em. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: mousethief Date: 16 Apr 01 - 03:21 PM Like what, Doug? Breasts? Or the ladies in the NG mag? ALex |
|
Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism? From: DougR Date: 17 Apr 01 - 12:16 AM Breasts. DougR |
| Share Thread: |