Posted on Sep 2, 2015
Is our historical past something to be ashamed of?
8.16K
99
38
12
12
0
We're still hearing about the removal of historical monuments/symbols and names of historical persons from everything from locations of the historical event, buildings, to social events. Is this going to make anything better? Erasing the historical past can have a negative result. By failing to learn from our past and preserving that memory we are creating the situation where the past may be repeated. None of this is going to stop or change racism. Racism is not born from a site, symbol or name, it is born from being taught to hate. It starts early at home. Even if erasing history would make the world a better place it is a bad idea because history is the story of life, of human development. Nothing that we human beings ever do is going to be perfect and mistakes will continue to be made. Hind sight is always 20/20. http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/flashback-friday-reagan-erasing-history-will-erode-american-spirit
I was inspired to write this after reading an article in which there was a statement referring to America's "shameful 200 year history". Reading this aggravated me. Our country has struggled through a lot of difficulties, difficulties that should make us stronger, more capable and proud. Mistakes were made, corrections were made and our nation survived.
I was inspired to write this after reading an article in which there was a statement referring to America's "shameful 200 year history". Reading this aggravated me. Our country has struggled through a lot of difficulties, difficulties that should make us stronger, more capable and proud. Mistakes were made, corrections were made and our nation survived.
People
Politics
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 29
2
2
0
The past is just that, the past, we can't atone or amend for what happened hundreds of years ago when the world and our country ran on different principles, economics, thought processes, etc. We have to accept the past as the past and move on and acknowledge what we've done since to improve everyone's lot in life. This revisionist history is crap, just crap. You don't erase our roots because someone finds part of it politically incorrect because it changes how we got to where we are now.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
The great cry of the White Liberal apologists is that it must be something the United States has done to rot so much suffering on people in the past and that somehow the country must be made to pay for it. Every wrong must be righted no matter how much time has passed and even if all involved are long since dead. I am by no means saying that it should not be recognized as a historical fact and it certainly is nothing to be proud of. It is something however to be learned from and used a measure of where we came from as a country and where we are going. No America is not perfect but we are a work in progress. In fact it says so in the preamble: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union.”
Here is why the apologists are wrong. If the rebellion had failed and the United States never formed would Africans and Native Americans been treated any better by the nations of Europe? No they would not have; Europe has a long history of colonial occupation around the world to prove that. In fact they were still trying to control colonies with in the life times of many of you reading this. Canada was a British colony? Who knew? Most colonies were not treated as well as our neighbor to the north. The Zulu’s come to mind.
Look at the condition of the Native American peoples in Mexico, Central, and South America. They were treated just great by the Spanish Conquistadors right? No they were killed in vast numbers. So should Spain and the rest of Europe pony up and start writing checks and erasing everything they left in the new world from history? Well that is not going to happen for many reasons, one being they have yet to pay us back for WWII; two they don’t respond well to American demands; three they don’t have the money anyway.
Only non-whites were treated badly prior to the American Revolution right? Wrong, the first slaves or as a sanitized version of history called them indentured servants were white. For some reason the British found that the Irish were undesirable and should be killed on the spot our sold as slaves in the new world. Some Irish were still fighting the Crown right up until about 20 years ago. *
We like any other Nation have our faults but the world is better off with us than without us. We are getting better all the time. The future is what we make of it.
* http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/31076
Here is why the apologists are wrong. If the rebellion had failed and the United States never formed would Africans and Native Americans been treated any better by the nations of Europe? No they would not have; Europe has a long history of colonial occupation around the world to prove that. In fact they were still trying to control colonies with in the life times of many of you reading this. Canada was a British colony? Who knew? Most colonies were not treated as well as our neighbor to the north. The Zulu’s come to mind.
Look at the condition of the Native American peoples in Mexico, Central, and South America. They were treated just great by the Spanish Conquistadors right? No they were killed in vast numbers. So should Spain and the rest of Europe pony up and start writing checks and erasing everything they left in the new world from history? Well that is not going to happen for many reasons, one being they have yet to pay us back for WWII; two they don’t respond well to American demands; three they don’t have the money anyway.
Only non-whites were treated badly prior to the American Revolution right? Wrong, the first slaves or as a sanitized version of history called them indentured servants were white. For some reason the British found that the Irish were undesirable and should be killed on the spot our sold as slaves in the new world. Some Irish were still fighting the Crown right up until about 20 years ago. *
We like any other Nation have our faults but the world is better off with us than without us. We are getting better all the time. The future is what we make of it.
* http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/31076
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Removing any form of history from our past as a nation or as individuals is not progress. The only way to gauge ones progress is by observing ones starting point. How can we know if we as a nation are improving if we are not allowed to compair our present with our past. According to our president nothing we have done in the last 40 years (recycling) has helped us to cool the planet. He said last year was the hottest on record. If we remove the record how do we know If he is being truthful?
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
No never. Because without the past and past mistake and achievements you can never be able to make a better future. With the achievements you can improve on the and make things better like all the invention that's has made this country great and has helped it progress and improve in technology and medicines. With our mistakes we learn not to make the same one and hopefully improve on what we learned from them.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
No, our past is our history. You shouldn't be ashamed of history, but there's nothing wrong with learning from it.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The only shame is for a person or people to know they did something wrong and then do it again in spite of knowing it is wrong. If they don't know well then I guess you can't fix stupid.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
CPT (Join to see) - Captain; America's past contains many incidents which, if they happened today, would be shameful.
However they DID NOT happen today and the fact of the matter is that America has risen to the state that it is because it was able to OVERCOME those incidents and move ever closer to the thoughts and sentiments set out in "The American Ideal". (Whether "The American Ideal" was ever an actual fact is irrelevant because it is an IDEAL and the country [hopefully] keeps trying to move closer to it.)
What has to be done is to abandon the hypocrisy of pretending that America is now, always has been, and always will be, perfect and motivated solely by the highest moral standards and disinterested concern for all people in order to bring peace and prosperity to the entire world (while letting the people of other countries have the absolute freedom to control their own destinies in their own manners). Only then will the American people realize how fortunate they have been and the hard work that is going to be needed to maintain that good fortune.
However they DID NOT happen today and the fact of the matter is that America has risen to the state that it is because it was able to OVERCOME those incidents and move ever closer to the thoughts and sentiments set out in "The American Ideal". (Whether "The American Ideal" was ever an actual fact is irrelevant because it is an IDEAL and the country [hopefully] keeps trying to move closer to it.)
What has to be done is to abandon the hypocrisy of pretending that America is now, always has been, and always will be, perfect and motivated solely by the highest moral standards and disinterested concern for all people in order to bring peace and prosperity to the entire world (while letting the people of other countries have the absolute freedom to control their own destinies in their own manners). Only then will the American people realize how fortunate they have been and the hard work that is going to be needed to maintain that good fortune.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
History is just that History - Teach it in school and learn from history...you cannot pick and choose history.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
TSgt Kevin Buccola - Sergeant; You say "History is just that History ...".
Let's take a look at the War of 1812. Was the War of 1812 a "war of aggression" or was it a "justified response to hostile acts"? Did the United States of America "win" the War of 1812 (although it achieved none of its 'war aims') or did the British/Canadians (yes, I know that there was no country of Canada at the time) "win" the War of 1812 (even though they made absolutely no concrete gains from it)? How high was the percentage of Americans (read as "people who had come to Canada from the United States of America and pledged loyalty to the British Crown") in the military forces who fought AGAINST the United States of America?
Let's take a look at the Spanish/American War. Was that war the result of hostile acts against the United States of America by Spain or was it a war that was conjured up by William Randolph Hurst in order to sell newspapers? Did "The Roughriders" conduct a mounted charge up San Juan Hill and thereby sweep away the Spanish defenders, or was most of the heaviest fighting conducted by the 10th Cavalry and 24th Infantry Regiments (HISTORICAL NOTE, the 10th Cav. and 24th Inf. were composed of "Buffalo Soldiers" - which, means that they were "Blacks".)
Let's take a look at the American Revolution. Was the American Revolution the result of harsh taxation policies that oppressed the colonists, or was it the result of the fact that the "British" merchants who paid the taxes could actually land goods more cheaply than the "American" merchants who had to factor in the additional costs of the ships they lost to the Royal Navy's "Anti-Smuggling" patrols when they tried to evade the taxes? Did the Founding Fathers establish a nation where every man was equal and had an equal share in selecting their government, or did they establish a nation where "The Presidency", "The Senate", and "The Supreme Court" remained solely within the hands of "The Right People" (read as "the rich and powerful")?
Let's take a look at the Vietnam War. Was the Vietnam War a war fought because the (North)Vietnamese had attacked American naval vessels in an obvious act of war, or was it a war fought because the American government wanted a war and invented a fictitious attack in order to justify one? Was the Vietnam War fought to defeat Communism and preserve freedom and democracy in (South)Vietnam, or was it one fought to keep a corrupt, venal, and brutal government that represented the interests of a minority of (South)Vietnamese but which would do what the US government told it to do in power and to keep the government that the majority of Vietnamese wanted (and which wasn't likely to do what the US government told it to do) out of power? Was the "Anti-War" movement primarily about stopping the Vietnam War, or was it primarily about stopping the American draft (read as "We really don't care who gets killed or who does the killing - just as long as it isn't us getting killed.")? [RESEARCH POINTER - Examine the frequency and size of the "Anti-War protests before and after the US draft was stopped.]
Indeed "History is history", the question is "Which history are you going to teach?".
After all, you don't want to confuse those impressionable minds with complex matters, they might suffer a decline in their feeling of self-worth.
Let's take a look at the War of 1812. Was the War of 1812 a "war of aggression" or was it a "justified response to hostile acts"? Did the United States of America "win" the War of 1812 (although it achieved none of its 'war aims') or did the British/Canadians (yes, I know that there was no country of Canada at the time) "win" the War of 1812 (even though they made absolutely no concrete gains from it)? How high was the percentage of Americans (read as "people who had come to Canada from the United States of America and pledged loyalty to the British Crown") in the military forces who fought AGAINST the United States of America?
Let's take a look at the Spanish/American War. Was that war the result of hostile acts against the United States of America by Spain or was it a war that was conjured up by William Randolph Hurst in order to sell newspapers? Did "The Roughriders" conduct a mounted charge up San Juan Hill and thereby sweep away the Spanish defenders, or was most of the heaviest fighting conducted by the 10th Cavalry and 24th Infantry Regiments (HISTORICAL NOTE, the 10th Cav. and 24th Inf. were composed of "Buffalo Soldiers" - which, means that they were "Blacks".)
Let's take a look at the American Revolution. Was the American Revolution the result of harsh taxation policies that oppressed the colonists, or was it the result of the fact that the "British" merchants who paid the taxes could actually land goods more cheaply than the "American" merchants who had to factor in the additional costs of the ships they lost to the Royal Navy's "Anti-Smuggling" patrols when they tried to evade the taxes? Did the Founding Fathers establish a nation where every man was equal and had an equal share in selecting their government, or did they establish a nation where "The Presidency", "The Senate", and "The Supreme Court" remained solely within the hands of "The Right People" (read as "the rich and powerful")?
Let's take a look at the Vietnam War. Was the Vietnam War a war fought because the (North)Vietnamese had attacked American naval vessels in an obvious act of war, or was it a war fought because the American government wanted a war and invented a fictitious attack in order to justify one? Was the Vietnam War fought to defeat Communism and preserve freedom and democracy in (South)Vietnam, or was it one fought to keep a corrupt, venal, and brutal government that represented the interests of a minority of (South)Vietnamese but which would do what the US government told it to do in power and to keep the government that the majority of Vietnamese wanted (and which wasn't likely to do what the US government told it to do) out of power? Was the "Anti-War" movement primarily about stopping the Vietnam War, or was it primarily about stopping the American draft (read as "We really don't care who gets killed or who does the killing - just as long as it isn't us getting killed.")? [RESEARCH POINTER - Examine the frequency and size of the "Anti-War protests before and after the US draft was stopped.]
Indeed "History is history", the question is "Which history are you going to teach?".
After all, you don't want to confuse those impressionable minds with complex matters, they might suffer a decline in their feeling of self-worth.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I think a lot of people forget that "History" is what we live. If you would reflect on your own individual lives you see many instances that are in fact "History". I saw the Berlin Wall go up and I saw it come down. I saw the first Space Shuttle flight as well as Alan Shepard's foray into space. I saw and experienced the Vietnam War. I watched Desert Shield and Desert Storm. I saw Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. I saw the assassination of President Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Malcom X and Robert Kennedy. I saw attempted assassinations on George Wallace and President Gerald R. Ford and Ronald Reagan. I have seen political scandals, entertainment scandals, religious scandals. All of these evens are History and they are all in my lifetime. What happens if some chooses to leave out an issue in the history books that they feel makes them or someone they favor look bad. This is where we are at. Some historians have chosen to eliminate some of the "uglier" aspects of our American History. That is one reason we have some of the problems we have today. I know many here on Rally Point feel that President Obama is the worst President in our countries history. However, you must remember the same thing was said about President Abraham Lincoln during his lifetime. We know he was in fact on of our greatest Presidents. In my humble opinion, I believe the History Books will be kind to President Barack Obama as having been on of the most effective presidents in recent years. Please don't indulge me with all kinds of "hate" responses. I appreciate responses that politely voice opposing views.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Should we remove Dr. Kings "I have a dream" speech because it points to a time out history when there was a struggle for equality?
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google