When Michael Medved wrote his column, Six inconvenient truths about the U.S. and slavery a year ago, lefties went nuts, mischaracterizing him as defending slavery, and Keith Olbermann distinguished him with the much coveted “Worst Person in the World” award.
Love his challenge to the caller Jamal, in this radio interview from November 30th, regarding if Jamal takes offense to having a “slave” last name (Phillips), why on earth would he adopt a “slave” first name (Jamal), given that if any group should bear unique guilt and responsibility for perpetuating the institution of slavery in its history, it’s the Islamic world (they don’t bear unique guilt, as slavery was institutionalized in so many cultures all over the globe). Not only was the slave trade alive and thriving long before America was ever a country, but it existed in the Islamic world a century after it was ended in the West, and was responsible for as many as twenty times the number of African slaves that were ever brought over to Britain and North America.
Pg 55-6 from the book:
Saudi Arabia outlawed slave owning only in 1962. The Islamic Republic of Mauritania finally moved toward abolition in 1981, but the practice continued unabated, even after a 2003 law that made slave ownership punishable with jail or a fine. As recently as December 2004, the BBC cited Boubakar Messaoud of Mauritania’s SOS Slaves Organization: “A Mauritanian slave, whose parents and grandparents before him were slaves, doesn’t need chains. He has been brought up as a domesticated animal.”
The organization Christian Solidarity International continues to purchase Sudanese slaves in order to free them, recently paying $100 (or two cows) for an adult captive. A press release revealed that in March 2007 alone the group bought ninety-six male slaves, who had been seized as part of the Muslim northern government’s “jihad” on the nation’s Christian and animist south. Six of the young men had been raped by their Islamic masters, and 99 percent had received frequent and sadistic beatings.
The long, savage history of Muslim slavers and their depredations in every corner of Africa makes a mockery of the trendy sentimental attachment of many African Americans to an alien Islamic culture that not only abused their ancestors but still afflicts their cousins. The fascination with Arab names (Jamal or Ayesha, not to mention Muhammad Ali or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar), even among non-Muslims in the black community, and the glamorization of Arab civilization as somehow authentically African grow in spite of incontrovertible evidence of more than a millennium of brutal Islamic enslavement.
I picked up my copy of his new book, yesterday.
Big Lies That Poison Thanksgiving And Subvert Our Sense Of Honor
By MICHAEL MEDVED | Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 4:20 PM PT
For some of Barack Obama’s most ardent supporters, his resounding victory represented the first sign of redemption for a wretched, guilty nation with a 400-year history of oppression.
Filmmaker Michael Moore, for instance, considered election night “a stunning, whopping landslide of hope in a time of deep despair. In a nation that was founded on genocide and then built on the backs of slaves, it was an unexpected moment, shocking in its simplicity.”
Actually, Mr. Moore’s summary of America’s origins is a wholly expected distortion, shocking in its mendacity.
Like so many other revered figures in the worlds of entertainment and academia, the portly provocateur thoughtlessly recycles the darkest assumptions about the generous nation that provides his privileged, prosperous life.
My new book, “The 10 Big Lies About America,” represents an aggressive effort to correct the ugly smears that play an increasingly prominent (and often unchallenged) role in our public discourse.
Big Lie No. 1, for instance, concerns the ubiquitous notion that the nation’s founders and builders followed a policy of “genocide” toward Native Americans.
In truth, disease caused 95% of the deaths that ravaged native populations of North America following European contact. Despite lurid (but historically baseless) claims of massive infection brought about by “smallpox blankets,” even the deadliest germs displayed no consciously hostile agenda.
In fact, intermarriage (including frequent intermarriage with African-Americans, slaves and free) and assimilation caused more Indian “losses” than all occasional massacres by governmental and irregular forces — incidents invariably condemned by federal authorities, never sponsored by them.
My book’s Lie No. 2 precisely anticipates Moore’s claim that America was “built on the backs of slaves,” suggesting that our wealth and prosperity came chiefly through the stolen labor of kidnapped Africans.
While slavery represented an undeniable horror in our nation’s early history, the slave population never exceeded 20% of the national total (amounting to 12% at the time of the Civil War). This means that at least 80% of the work force remained free laborers.
The claim that our forefathers built America “on the backs of slaves” rests on the idiotic idea that involuntary servitude proved vastly more productive than free labor. In fact, the states dominated by the slave economy counted as the poorest, least developed in the union — providing the North with crushing economic superiority that brought victory in the War Between the States.
Of more than 20 million Africans taken from their homes in chains, at most 3% ever made their way to the territory of the United States (or the British colonies preceding our nation). Americans played no part in establishing the once-universal institution of slavery but played a leading, outsize role in bringing about its abolition.
Other lies about America’s past badly distort current debates over public policy. It’s not true, for instance, that governmental activism provides a necessary remedy for periodic economic downturns (Big Lie No. 6).
In fact, leaders who courageously resisted the temptation of major federal initiatives at times of crisis presided over shorter, less painful recessions, while the ambitious innovations of Hoover and FDR worsened and prolonged the Great Depression. (Even liberal historians admit that the New Deal never worked as “a recovery program.”)
Meanwhile, the popular assumption that our founders determined to create a secular, not a Christian, nation (Big Lie No. 3) has produced widespread hysteria over the program of “the Christian right.”
In fact, the constitutional framers insisted on a combination of a secular government and a deeply Christian society. Even Jefferson, an unconventional religious thinker, believed that fervent faith represented a necessary element in the security and growth of the republic; he personally attended and authorized weekly Christian services in the Capitol building itself.
Secular militants, not Christian conservatives, currently strive to transform America in a way our founders would neither recognize nor approve.
Unfortunately, some of the same religious conservatives who get it right about the place of organized faith in the American fabric get it terribly wrong by signing on to Big Lie No. 10: that the United States has entered into a steep — and irreversible — moral decline.
In fact, a wealth of statistics concerning marriage, teenage sexuality, drug addiction, crime, alcohol abuse and other signs of social breakdown show a recent, decisive turnaround that may represent one of the nation’s periodic “awakenings.” Moralists have proclaimed permanent ethical collapse ever since 1645, yet no one could claim that our path has been straight downhill for 350 years.
The big lies about America all work to undermine the sense of honor and gratitude that ought to inspire every citizen, particularly in this Thanksgiving season. They also destroy the essential sense of perspective required in significant debates as a new government comes to power in Washington, D.C.
While Sen. Obama’s supporters rightly rejoice at his election to the nation’s highest office, they will disorient his presidency and damage society if they embrace destructive distortions about our past, and view his elevation as a rare (or exclusive) basis for pride.
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
People just love to hate America. Envy and jealousy are their motivation. Ignorant people believes that America is the Great Satan… lol
America is a Great Nation, always was, always will be. Unless Obama wrecks it up for good.
c(R)aig: “… Ignorant people believes [sic] that America is the Great Satan… lol”
SG: ‘Ignorant’, indeed …!
Snerd
Craig—just curious, but then why don’t you live here? Or is it like taking a vacation to Disneyland?
BTW, what is the point of this thread? Okay, so America was not built on the backs of slaves.
And that is important to those who live in the 21st century because??????
Because Obama wants reparations for slavery for one, and for another, we all need to know the truth, period. That is why it is important. The lies that are told surrounding slavery damages America and negatively affects us all.
Richard, why don’t you just leave? Oh, and since you are a typically clueless liberal, this article is aimed at the race pimps and racial divisions your kind supports.
To paraphrase the arguement, take your attempts to make us feel guilty over the past and shove it.
“divisions” + “your kind”
And here I was wondering why you felt bad
“Craig—just curious, but then why don’t you live here?” (Richard)
That was my intention if Sarah Palin would have won. I have many friends in the States. But with Obama as President, no way. I will wait till he gets out of there.
I’ll use small words for you richard.
Your kind= leftists
Divisions= Spreading racial hate and ensuring blacks remain your political slaves all for political power.
You know, some of the things you pretend that you’re not guilty of while accusing us of being racists.
“W”ade: “… The lies that are told surrounding slavery damages America and negatively affects us all.”
SG: Yes … We are a slave to the wrong history, Eh!?
Snerd
snerd, no one cares what you think. Your opinion means nothing since your testicles have yet to descend. Now go find a job and get out of mommy’s basement. BTW, you seem to have stolen someone elses ID. That makes you a douche as well.
to the socailly retarded and clueless liberals that visit here…..craig is from canada and i do believe his native language isn’t english, so please refrain from being the clueless asses you have proven yourselves to be. it should be recognised that he has taken more of an interest in our nations politics and how things work than even the most educated obama voter. he shows a care and respect for our nation that the liberals do not. the way i see all of this is… get over it. the muslims and your own people sold your ancestors to the slave traders, who in turn sold them to americans, who were not the largest holders of slaves. you want reparations? go get them from the country of your ancestors births, or the slave traders ancestors. i didn’t buy or sale your ancestors butts, hell i am native american so i guess i could ask where mine is also, but i believe in working for what i get not the other way around.
(R)ard: “… you seem to have stolen someone elses [sic] ID. That makes you a douche as well.”
SG: Actually it is a visiting friend who wanted to make a couple of comments … Actually she wonders what my interest is in “Abusive Personalities and their Political Orientation”.
HR: What is you interest in Snerd’s testicles? It is honorable I hope?
SG: … or possibly an example of latent homosexuality … or is that just some toilet paper inadvertently stuck to your comment?
Snerd
Well (R)ard, HR seems to be pursuing your question … ahhhh … further.
I would LOVE to answer to that idiot Snerd Gronk and tell him what I really think of him… but Curt might threaten to ban me. So I will leave it up to the authors of this site to take care of him. I believe they will not pretend that this is freedom of speech and that we are having a profound exchange between right and left with that idiot. No, I don’t think that this time they will argue this.
Personally, I am just about to burst. I can’t stand stupidity. Tolerance ZERO for these idiots.
And NO, I am not looking for an echo chamber… I just don’t see the point of having to bear these idiot troublemakers.
@Richard:
Richard,
Is it not obvious? So many people- including non-Americans- have been sold the notion that America bears unique guilt, singled out from the proper context of history. It leads to race profiteers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to enslave blacks to a victim mindset. It leads to apology resolutions, like the one from New Jersey in 2007 and the one from the House of Representatives on July of 2008 that are just saturated with false history and guilt. In the 2nd “whereas” clause of the House resolution, it says: “Whereas slavery in America resembled no other form of involuntary servitude known in history, as Africans were captured and sold at auction like inanimate objects or animals…”
Medved again:
In the 21st century, how is Will Smith oppressed by the legacy of American slavery? Reverend Wright? Michelle Obama? Blacks in America today have the ability to succeed or fail based upon their own merits; unless they remain on the plantation of believing they are being “held down by white society” or by events that happened over a hundred years ago still affecting their psyche. What’s affecting their psyche is the preoccupation with racism and fixation on American slavery.
I agree Craig. It’s clear he’s here to be a troll and nothing more. He spends a lot of his time going to Conservative sites to cause trouble. If he’s an American–we’ll trade him for you. Deal?
Hard Right,
Lol… he would be happy in Quebec with all the leftists.
Back to to the thread:
Black people reminds me of Quebec’s separatists who are still angry with the “Plaines d’Abraham” battle’s defeat. Since then, they hate English people and wants to part with Canada. They don’t seem to forget and forgive. They can’t get over it.
I am glad the Englishs won that battle, I wouldn’t want to be stuck with these fanatic Frenchies that thinks like elitists. They are convinced that they are so much better than the ROC (Rest Of Canada) and the USA… lol
BTW, they lost that battle because the French army was asleep and drunk when they were attacked… lol
@Craig: If it’s just mindless insults then yes, you would force me to ban you as I said in this comment:
You already said you were outta here, and your back. I’m not sorry about that since I enjoy you being around when your actually contributing to a debate rather then mindless insults. But if you want to start throwing around the childish comments like “I would LOVE to answer to that idiot Snerd Gronk and tell him what I really think of him… but Curt might threaten to ban me.” then you can just keep on moving.
Snerd has been moderated, it took me awhile because I have a day job and I have plenty of my own drama going on in my life. Once I saw his idiotic repetitive comments I put him into the spam filter.
Word,
Although I have been consistently impressed with the thoughfulness of your posts, I have to strenuously to your current post.
First, although Michael Medved is a very bright man, he is not a historian. He is in no position in terms of academic training to engage in historical revisionism. The very title of his book signals that it is a polemic and not serious history.
I will address the Native Americans in passing, not because they are less important, but because they were not the focus of your post. Whether or not the United States ever had an explicitly genocidal policy, when a Native American population of an estimated 15 million in the mid-fifteenth century is reduced to approximately 200,000 in 1910 ( these numbers can be tinkered with and debated around the margins without changing their import), genocide has effectively occurred whether deliberate or not. Further, the Trail of Tears is a historical fact, whether or not smallpox-laden blankets are.
Re: America’s Unique Guilt for Slavery. First, Al Sharpton is irrelevant to the discussion, just as Meyer Kahane is irrelevant to a discussion of the Holocaust. Demagogues are demagogues. On that note, however, what would you think of a book by a German author that complained about Germany’s alleged unique guilt for the Holocaust, citing the Christian/European roots of anti-Semitism? Would you see that as morally insightful?
Secondly, although collective guilt is an unhelpful concept, the mere fact that other individuals or nations are guilty of the same crime, does nothing to impact the “unique” guilt of any one individual or nation that commits that crime. From a moral standpoint, what does it matter that one’s guilt is not unique? Remember what your Mom use to say when you pointed out that Johnny did it too, ” If Johnny jumped off a bridge, would you jump off the bridge.?” A trite, but apt, analogy to a deadly serious moral issue. Finally, can you (or Mr. Medved) cite one nation or group of comparable popluation and geographical extent to the American South whose entire economy was based on chattel slavery?
We cannot move forward as a nation until we acknowledge where we have been. The history of African-Americans did not start in 1965.
Dave, I realized this when I bought the book; and I wondered if anyone would bring this up. The thing that disappointed me was not footnoting his sources; but what I like is the huge bibliography of sources at the end. Basically he does what all us non-PhD academics are doing: parroting the historians. To say he’s engaged in historical revisionism because you don’t like the perspective he draws- take it up with the historians he is reading from. What makes you assume the ones you’ve read have the more accurate account?
You can’t tell me that someone like Ward Churchill is a serious scholar just because he has an academic degree to his name.
Do I choose Victor Davis Hanson or Juan Cole?
As you say, he is brilliant. I give him weight, because of the substance he consistently brings to the table. Anyone who tries to dismiss him as nothing more than “a movie critic” ignores the vast amount of knowledge and savvy that he consistently shows, throughout the years of political punditry and historical research (His book, “Shadow Presidents” is quite useful and good research).
Where is the evidence of “whether or not” the U.S. ever had a policy of extermination of the Indian race? The vase reduction in population was due to death by disease. And I don’t agree with your definition-use of the word “genocide”.
Jared Diamond, a UCLA professor and one of those Medved cites, writes in Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies:
This is a tragedy, but it isn’t genocide, the intentional extermination of a group of people.
I’d consider it useful, if well-written, well-researched, and well-reasoned. Ideas speak for themselves, regardless of where the ideas originate from; although, knowing a person’s background may influence the perspective can also add color to the commentary as well.
Should black history be written only from the vantage point of blacks? Should racism? No.
Your question assumes that someone like Medved is attempting to absolve guilt. He is not. Everyone fully acknowledges that slavery was a terrible stain on our country’s history. A number of commenters on my own blog felt the need to preface their subsequent comment with the tidbit about how “slavery was bad….mmmkay?” before praising the so-called “revisionist” version of history.
What someone like Medved is doing is pointing out that there is no UNIQUE guilt, here. Put it in proportion and historical context to the rest of the world and America is one of the least guilty in scope of crime, and one of the most responsible (along with Britain) to bringing the institution of slavery to an end before it happened anywhere else in the world.
It matters because it is anti-American propaganda to point out the sins of America as if the sins are uniquely American, and happened nowhere else on planet earth. Have the Japanese yet taught their children the shame of the Rape of Nanking and the atrocities committed by Japanese soldiers in the rest of Southeast Asia? No. But I bet Japanese school children know all about American slavery and native-American “genocide”. Do Turks feel guilty for their ancestors having conquered Constantinople?
It’s not an apt analogy at all. It misses the point that Medved is trying to make entirely and you’re too bright for that. He fully acknowledges the crime and shame and sinfulness of slavery. But like Thomas Sowell, another so-called “non-historian”, he is contextualizing it and not conflating its significance in the greater scope of history.
I’m not sure….the Roman empire? Brazil? Egypt? I think possibly the Sumerians. In ancient Greece, slaves were cheap enough that even those of modest means owned them.
Why don’t you do the research, then get back to me on it? I won’t even hold it against you if you don’t put a PhD beside your name on your comment.
Colonial North America received only about 5 to 6 percent of the African slaves who were shipped across the Atlantic. Around 94 percent went to Central and South American countries. Yet you want to shine the magnifying glass on North American slavery, rather than upon all slavery?
Again, who does not acknowledge where we’ve been? Not Medved. Not wordsmith. But let’s get a grip and put it in proper historical context and significance.
Word,
I want to give your post the atttention it deserves.
I will get back to you.
Word,
From a moral perspective, there is no contextualization of evil. Srebenica, in which Christian murderers slaughtered 8000 Bosnian men and boys, does not provide “context” for 9/11 in which Muslim murders slaughtered over 3000 Americans. Vietcong atrocities do not provide context for My Lai. Sabra and Shatila do not contextualize suicide bombings Insurgent atrocities do not provide context for Abu Ghraib. From a moral standpoint, all evil acts are sui generis. They stand on their own.
“Again, who does not acknowledge where we’ve been? Not Medved. Not wordsmith.”
Actually, my homely analogy is directly on point. When Billy tells Mom that Johnny did it too, he isn’t denying his own guilt either, he’s trying to deflect it. He’s saying “I’m not the only one, I’m not unique, I’m not so bad.” Medved is doing the same thing. He’s saying “We’re not the only ones, we’re not unique, we’re not so bad.” Worse yet by using the term “lie,” he’s suggesting we are being slandered, subjected to an unfair calumny.
We are as bad and as good as we are, regardless of what other peoples or nations have done.
And I am not talking about the American people “feeling guilty” about slavery or the plight of Native Americans. What do we need to get a grip about? I proudly stand at attention for the national anthem. But I don’t need to remind everyone that “we weren’t the only ones” whenever one of our national crimes is mentioned. I love my country enough not to make excuses for it.
I have to jump in on this discussion.
What we did to the Native American Indians was terrible. People can make all the excuses they want about diseases, but America was bent killing the Indians. It is in our history and cannot be ignored. We tried to force our religion and our “advanced culture” on them. When they resisted we called them savages. When they fought back, we slaughtered many of them and put the rest on reservations where they had no rights to land that we stole form them, and they had no rights to move anywhere else in this country. Where do you people think the term “off the reservation” came from?
When Indians left the reservation they were hunted and either killed or jailed. They became criminals and outlaws for simply wanting to leave the reservations they were forced to live in. Our government made them promises it never kept. Where do you think the phrase “Indian giver” came from, or why the Indians said “White man speak with forked tongue.”
Slavery is another black eye for America too. I don’t agree that America was built by slave labor, but we still had slavery. And that was shameful too. No matter how worse it was elsewhere, no matter who was responsible for selling the slaves, America supported it knowing it was wrong. Even the founding fathers knew it was wrong and still some of them owned slaves, and still they did not stop it. They could and should have.
I am right-wing conservative, I love my country, but I can admit her errors. This country has had her share sins, but I still love this country and still am proud of her, but I will not simply dismiss her sins, especially based on the premise that, “But Johnny did it too.”
We must remember the truth so that we don’t forget it.
Dave
“First, although Michael Medved is a very bright man, he is not a historian. He is in no position in terms of academic training to engage in historical revisionism. The very title of his book signals that it is a polemic and not serious history.”
Before you criticize Medved on his “academic training” you might want to do some common sense research. Michael Medved was a National Merit Scholar, who attended Yale and was an American History Major graduating with honors.
Word smith was correct when he said, “let’s get a grip and put it in proper historical context and significance.” The facts Medved makes about “Slavery” are correct, there is no “historical revisionism.” History is a very hard discipline/subject to present and teach objectively. As hard as good teachers try, some of their personal ideas always come through. The problem with many, many history teachers and writers is they purposely cloud there interpretation of history with their bias views. A good teacher of history should give the historical facts and encourage the student to analyze , question and interpret the information. Concerning the issue of “Slavery”, Medved gives documentation and a bibliography to back up his facts. Take the facts he gives, if you question them check them out for yourself, and if humanly possible leave your biases behind and reevaluate the information he gives you.
“Insurgent atrocities do not provide context for Abu Ghraib.”
The incident at Abu Ghraib was the equivalent of a college hazing, not torture.
Thus proving Medved’s point.
CURT,
“But if you want to start throwing around the childish comments like “I would LOVE to answer to that idiot Snerd Gronk and tell him what I really think of him… but Curt might threaten to ban me.” then you can just keep on moving.” (Curt)
The rest of my comment was: “… but Curt might threaten to ban me. So I will leave it up to the authors of this site to take care of him. I believe they will not pretend that this is freedom of speech and that we are having a profound exchange between right and left with that idiot. No, I don’t think that this time they will argue this. Personally, I am just about to burst. I can’t stand stupidity. Tolerance ZERO for these idiots. And NO, I am not looking for an echo chamber… I just don’t see the point of having to bear these idiot troublemakers.”
I was speaking the truth. That is exactly what you did, you banned him. There was no childishness in my comment. These were the exact words that you have told me before; you even copied and pasted them here. Boy, you are jumping fast to conclusions and have no sense of humor whatsoever. Perhaps susceptibility?
If you would read all the comments on your site, you would realize that I am VERY far away from being the worst conservative one here for insulting these leftists that are here only to insult us.
But I guess this is an American blog and a Canadian conservative has to be perfect to write on your site or they are out. This is what I understand from your statement. Otherwise you would also criticize your own people (American conservatives) who insult others insulting leftists… but you don’t, I never saw it. So I guess I just get on your nerves and you would prefer I would stay out of it… and keep moving, like you say. That is fine with me. I only came back because of the numerous comments of conservatives who told me they appreciated me.
But you’re the boss; it is your site, so I guess your opinion counts more than them. You told me:
“You already said you were outta here, and your back. I’m not sorry about that since I enjoy you being around when your actually contributing to a debate rather then mindless insults.”
WOW! I am the top commentator here… and not more that 1% of my comments are mindless insults, and this is not to say 0.01%. The rest is real information. I think I’m doing quite a good job here considering the fact that I am French and it is difficult for me to express exactly what I really want to say… and considering that I do not live in your country but still I am very well informed about it But, you only regard the 1%. What about the 99% of my posts? How much do you read of my comments? 5%, 10%… or what? I don’t really want an answer from you. It is useless. Your mind is made up and so is mine. I know that I am not perfect, never was and never will be. I don’t have that pretension. And that seems not to be good enough for you. Well… sorry, this is who I am. You can’t stand it? Fine! I get it!
“when a Native American population of an estimated 15 million in the mid-fifteenth century is reduced to approximately 200,000 in 1910…genocide has effectively occurred whether deliberate or not.”
Huh? “Genocide (noun): The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group. — The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, (c) 2000.” If it’s not intentional then it is not genocide. Q.E.D.
“the mere fact that other individuals or nations are guilty of the same crime, does nothing to impact the ‘unique’ guilt of any one individual or nation that commits that crime.”
Okay, one more time: If a crime is proved to not be unique, then this absolutely refutes the claim that some party is uniquely guilty. That’s basic English and elementary logic.
Furthermore, the supposed uniqueness of American slavery is at the heart of the matter, because the Left uses it as a bludgeon to demonize America. Therefore it is utterly unfair and dishonest to say that the question of uniqueness is irrelevant.
(cue the Aflac duck, walking out of the Little Barbershop of Intellectual Horrors while shaking his head and saying “arrrrgghhhh!”)
That comment was most definitely childish. Instead of ignoring the comments left by Snerd and waiting until we did as you thought we would do you just had to put a dig in there about Curt threatening to ban you. Childish. But I also said I enjoy you being here, and I read 100% of all the comments left on this blog so I have not missed one of yours.
This has gone way off topic and if you want to discuss this further email me and we will discuss it that way.
@Dave Noble:
I understand. But we are talking specifically about the issue of slavery. And have acknowledged that all slavery is abhorrent and evil. But what is at issue is when one nation specifically- America- is singled out as the worst offender in the history of the world. That is a flat out defamatory lie. There is nothing wrong with calling people on it; it doesn’t minimize the actual gravity of American slavery.
No….he’s not. He fully acknowledges the evil atrocities of slavery in our past. But that’s not the book he’s writing about. He is specifically addressing the charge from the Ward Churchills and Noam Chomskys and Howard Zinns who have created this impression of unique guilt. A more accurate analogy would be to have Billy acknowledge to mommy that, yes, he pulled wings off of flies and delighted with toasting ants by holding a magnifying glass under a hot sun…when he was 6. Older brother Johnny not only did those things when he was 3, but graduated on to setting cats on fire when he was 6, followed by victimizing other kids as he got older. Mommy ignores that there is anything wrong with Johnny who also went on to commit armed robbery, including knifing another kid. Instead, she constantly berates Billy, who’s now 12 years old; not a perfect child, but one who fully accepts that what he did at age 6 was wrong, and not only that, when he was 7, went on an activist crusade to insure that all the other kids at school realize how cruel it was to pull wings off bugs and torture them with a magnifying glass. Billy gets zero credit for that. Billy recognizes and understands his sins. Is it wrong to point out to mommy that there is something wrong with her only punishing and putting down Billy?
My tweaking of your analogy is imperfect; but do you at least get my point?
We are being slandered! Do you not see that there are some beliefs out there that are just patently false?
What child of the 70’s didn’t grow up watching Roots every year? It became part of the American pysche, driving home the evils of our past sin of slavery. That was good; that was needed. But now, how much damage has it also done in creating certain perceptions that are false and misleading?
Agreed; but the level of self-loathing and self-hatred for historical distortions is just as harmful as living in denial.
I’m the one who’s talking about unique guilt. That’s what Medved’s addressing. I still think you’re missing his point, and mine for giving it blogtime. You don’t feel that race profiteers like Louis Farrakhan don’t need to “get a grip”? Senator Cohen for pushing the apology resolution that includes some over-exaggerated assertions?
Do you love it enough to defend it against slander and lies and distortions? Or do you just stand there and “take it” like the good patriot you are?
@WadeHM:
Wade,
Again, no one is denying that what we did to Native Americans was horrible. But when there are those out there who romanticize this notion that Native Americans were “noble savages” who were also eco-friendly environmentalists living in harmony with nature and their fellow Indians, it’s just nonsense. Because Indians ultimately were on the losing side of western expansionism, and were here “first”, we conveniently forget that they weren’t absolved of atrocities themselves- not all of which were mere retaliation against the brutality exercised by white European settlers. Some tribes attacked, unprovoked. Warfare wasn’t exclusive only to white vs. red; it was also red vs. red, even before the white man arrived. Mayans, Aztecs…engaged in the most horrific cannibalistic enslavement and sadisitic practices of torture and sacrifice. I’d say “savages” is a rather apt adjective for them, if simplistic and narrowly defined.
Let me cut-and-paste a couple of my comments on another thread:
wordsmith #17:
wordsmith #19:
Back to you, Wade:
No one is saying let’s forget the past; let’s just not distort it to make ourselves feel good by constant handwringing self-loathing and exaggerated sense of feeling unique guilt. I really do think many Americans- usually liberals- make themselves feel good by feeling so much guilt and the need to do penance for crimes committed by ancestors generations ago.
“This has gone way off topic and if you want to discuss this further email me and we will discuss it that way.” (Curt)
No need to. Have it your way, I don’t feel like arguing with you. You can think it is childish, I don’t think so. But have it your way… I don’t really care.
Word,
No one is saying let’s forget the past; let’s just not distort it to make ourselves feel good by constant handwringing self-loathing and exaggerated sense of feeling unique guilt. I really do think many Americans- usually liberals- make themselves feel good by feeling so much guilt and the need to do penance for crimes committed by ancestors generations ago.”
What an odd thing to say. I know you are not unique as a conservative in this belief. To your credit you cite it as an opinion and not a fact. The suggestion here is that liberals are inherently masochistic – they derive some kind of perverse pleasure (‘they make themselves feel by feeling so much guilt”). I’d respectfully ask you to step back from that statement and think how you’d react as a conservative if similar psychological dysfunction was posited as the basis for your beliefs. I wouldn’t even make that request of many of the bloggers here who don’t hesitate to explicitly describe liberals as “mentally ill,” “psychotic,” and “delusional.”
We don’t have time for guilt, once we have acknowledged the realities of our history. We as a nation have too much to do. I would argue that Medved is wasting as much intellectual energy and as much of our limited national attention as the Sharpton, Farrakhan, and Churchills of the world (I am not suggesting moral or intellectual equivalency here)
I still fail to see what we gain as Americans by pointing out that our practice of slavery was not unique. Re: the New Jersey resolution, I would still ask what modern sovereign nation had an agricultural economy based on slavery? But I have no interest in beating that horse.
Now, Word, were you to turn and ask me what harm there is the conservative line of argument epitomized by Medved, here is my evidence from a post above:
“The incident at Abu Ghraib was the equivalent of a college hazing, not torture.
Thus proving Medved’s point.”
This kind of minimization and moral obtuseness has degraded the American moral sensibility from the right, just as it has been degraded from the left.
And because I don’t like to talk behind someone’s back –
Nobrain, if you think Abu Ghraib was equivalent to a college hazing, you and I live in two different universes, practically and morally. I guess My Lai was target practice and the Trail of Tears was a hike.
Word,
Typos:
(“they make themselves feel *good*by feeling so much guilt”).
Now, Word, were you to turn and ask me what harm there is *in* the conservative line of argument epitomized by Medved, here is my evidence from a post above:
Dave,
Thanks for holding my feet to the fire. It makes me think.
@Dave Noble:
Hmmm….not sure how to respond to this. In one sense, I see what you’re saying; in another, I just don’t see what was so bad about my generality about liberals. Go ahead and give me a generality/stereotype of conservatives. I’ll let you know if I take disagreement on it.
Perhaps if there were a more specific group, identifiable under the umbrella of liberalism? Do you disagree with the usefulness (and I understand the prat falls) of applying generalities and stereotypes?
So many liberal Democrats I know personally seem obsessed with “white guilt“, whenever topics come up about American history. Also “moral relativism” and “moral equivalency”. If you’ve read my recent posts on Islam, you know I’m not an Islam-basher. But should I point out something regarding an incident involving Islamic fundamentalists/radicals, my liberal friend can’t help herself when she has to throw into the conversation, “Christianity/religion in general has done this evil and that evil, too…..”
I believe that this “white guilt” burden is taken to a fault; an extreme. You can see it reflected in Hollywood, in the types of movies that come out. Very few seem to focus on American exceptionalism. A great many seem all too willing to focus on America’s sins, though.
So am I just imagining things, based upon my political biases? I don’t think so; but I am stuck with my bias and the influence it has over my thinking.
Can you clarify this? Are you talking “we” as Americans? Or your political allies/liberals? Because I keep hearing about the sins of our past, and driven by liberals. Are there any conservatives out there who are pushing for reparations for descendants of slaves?
Who is not acknowledging “the realities of our history”? I’m ready to drive on, because “we as a nation have too much to do”. It’s why I’m “unimpressed” in a way, that Barack Obama was elected president, as a non-white president. Even though he broke a glass ceiling, there was never a doubt in my mind that a non-white could ever be elected to the highest office. As far as I felt, that glass ceiling in general was shattered at least two decades ago, if not longer.
I was moved by the glass ceiling breaking though; but only insofar as it meant so much to so many of my fellow citizens. But really, if we are ever to get beyond race, we need to quit looking at race, quit fixating upon it, quit obsessing over it….otherwise, it will always be an issue.
I fully disagree. He’s only wasting his time of if American perceptions weren’t shaped by the Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky worldview of American history and her place in world history.
I heard Howard Zinn on the Dennis Prager Show asked by the host if the world would have been better off had America never existed. His answer was “yes”.
I reject that belief. Flatout.
Perhaps because you do not see and hear what conservatives see and hear, which comes down to the impression, created by historians such as Howard Zinn, that America bears unique guilt.
Dave,
I absolutely agree with you that abu Ghraib was a lot more than just “a college hazing’. You called N. O’Brain on it; good for you. I, as a partisan hack, let it whiz right by me, shrugging it off subconsciously as hyperbole and a flippant remark aimed at a “liberal troll”. I don’t know N. O’Brain, but gave him an automatic pass that I don’t believe he truly thinks that. It’s kind of an overreaction response to the other end of the hyperbolic equation- which is that abu Ghraib constitutes the worst stain on American credibility and amounts to the worst torture, and Guantanamo is the equivalent to a Soviet Gulag, yadda, yadda, yadda. Did abu Ghraib really warrant 33 frontpage NYTimes articles? THAT, more than the actual incident(s), did more to harm us in a time of war (the way it was reported and talked about) than the severity of the actual crimes. It made good propaganda fodder for jihadists.
The 33 frontpage stories and Seymour Hersh’s perspective is the same kind of guilt obsession that I am talking about.
The same thing that leads Murtha to condemn the Haditha Marines before facts were in and Newsweek to report that a soldier at Guantanamo flushed a Koran down the toilet.
Where are the frontpage stories about America’s war heroes? The same eagerness to make Jessica Lynch into a national hero is missing now, when the news media decided that “Bush lied, people died” and Iraq was the wrong war, after all.
“Are there any conservatives out there who are pushing for reparations for descendants of slaves?”
There aren’t a lot of liberals, either, pushing for reparations *for the descendants of slaves*.
The modern slavery reparations movement isn’t about cash payments to those who can be identified as descended from slaves. There are too many moral and practical problems with that notion. It’s about acknowledging the inequality that has resulted from slavery and discrimination, and finding fair and appropriate ways to address this legacy of our past.
This is what the legislation currently pending before Congress attempts to do, and this is something which many conservatives I know support wholeheartedly.
Word,
“I heard Howard Zinn on the Dennis Prager Show asked by the host if the world would have been better off had America never existed. His answer was “yes”.
I reject that belief. Flatout.”
You and I agree.
And when I say “we have too much to do,” I mean “we” as Americans, liberal and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans.
@Richard: Because progressivists say, slavery all America’s doing, & is spreading the word like The Gospel.
Was there a standard in mainstream history against invasion & conquest apart from those who were invaded & conquered? Was there a standard against what was done to the “Indians” before the “palefaces” created one?
Was it crime or “competition”? I have a hunch that the colonials were the last ones to” get away w/ it.” That would make blaming us an X-post facto violation. Last one to get away w/ it turn out the lights. lol