The War on History

The War on History
At lunch today, I was talking with a friend about the "war on history." By that, I mean the Left's perpetual assault on Confederate monuments, Thomas Jefferson, Christopher Columbus, Thanksgiving, Christmas, among countless other historical figures, ideas, and traditions—you name it. In this post, I'm going to talk about this and in particular Thomas Jefferson. Although I've addressed this topic before, I'm going to approach it in a different way.

The Left's Assault
The Left is at war with history. And in this war, their weapon is time. The world today is better than yesterday, and we should aspire towards objective moral truths. Indeed, the history of mankind is a history of progress towards those truths, but history cannot be understood through a context that is not within its time or place. The Left's application of a 21st century context to events and figures throughout history has resulted in outright war against it. In textbooks and in cities across America, the legacies of Christopher Columbus, Thomas Jefferson, and a litany of others have been rewritten. Andrew Jackson, for instance, was once viewed as a hero of war, the man who won the Second War for American Independence, but now he is viewed as a slave owner whose contributions to America are negated by his acceptance of slavery.

This Left's assault on history is wrong not only because it rewrites history, but because it runs contrary to human nature. If a white man was born into a wealthy family during the early 19th century, he would likely be a slave owner. This is not because the man would understand slavery in an all-encompassing way, but because society would bind him to it. Just as a slave is bound in chains, the slave owner is bound in the chains of a social context. In other words, the institution of slavery is independent of the accomplishments of man—but the Left does not see it this way. The Left sees slavery as an inextricable part of man, and anyone who partook in it is thereby defined by it. The Left's views on history are, in other words, a-historical. Their crusade against statues and other commemorations of history reflect their short-sightedness and unwillingness to see the good in people, to see the contributions people have made, or to see why people fought and died on behalf of liberty.

The Right's Defense
Strictly speaking, there is no defense from the "Right," but rather a defense that is "right." History itself does not change, and although some parts of history are unknown, any speculation must be made in accordance with the context of history. Take, for instance, Thomas Jefferson. While Jefferson created a free society, he maintained an enslaved one. In theory, Jefferson without a doubt understood that all men are created equal (see Jefferson). However, in practice, not all men were. How can one reconcile Jefferson's theory and practice when they are apparently at odds? Answer: through the application of historical context. Logically, because Jefferson understood that all men are created equal, he did not enable slavery, nor did he own slaves because he thought that they were not equal, but for a different reason. Under his presidency, Jefferson enabled slavery and owned slaves because he took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. In the context of early America, abolishing slavery was 1. not feasible and 2. would have resulted in outright war between the states. To preserve the Constitution and to preserve the Union, Jefferson was bound to the institution of slavery by the context of his time. If war broke out among states during the early republic, the damage would have been irreparable—think, Britain invaded the United States just three years after Jefferson left office. Society was not ready for war, and society was not ready to abolish slavery. Jefferson understood this and he did his job.

Conclusion
Understanding history does not justify slavery nor any other stain on the history of man, but it allows us to appreciate Jefferson's contributions to the United States and to the world without appreciating the context in which those contributions were made. His legacy deserves to be preserved, protected, and defended. His legacy is not defined by the Left's assault, but by history—a history that is right.

Citations
Jefferson, Thomas. Summary View of the Rights of British-America, in Colonies to Nation, 234. "The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies, where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state. But previous to the enfranchisement of the slaves we have, it is necessary to exclude all further importations from Africa...preferring the immediate advantages of a few African corsairs to the lasting interests of the American states, and to the rights of human nature, deeply wounded by this infamous practice."
Jefferson, Thomas. Sixth Annual Message (1806), in Writings of Jefferson, 3:421. As president, [Jefferson] implored Congress to "withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights which have been so long continued on the unoffending inhabitants of Africa, and which the morality, the reputation, and the best interests of our country, have long been eager to proscribe."
Jefferson, Thomas. Notes on the State of Virginia (1783), Query 6, in Portable Thomas Jefferson, 96-97. "The [Native American] women are submitted to unjust drudgery. This I believe is the case with every barbarous people. With such, force is law. The stronger sex therefore imposes on the weaker. It is civilization alone which replaces women in the enjoyment of their natural equality. That first teaches us to subdue the selfish passions, and to respect those rights in others which we value in ourselves."

I encourage anyone who agrees or disagrees with me, or has a comment or question, to post below. Otherwise, my contributions to this forum might become less frequent, and nobody wants that. Yes, this is a threat.

Ecrit par Tribune Aquila, 19.11.2019 at 22:24

The War on History
At lunch today, I was talking with a friend about the "war on history." By that, I mean the Left's perpetual assault on Confederate monuments, Thomas Jefferson, Christopher Columbus, Thanksgiving, Christmas, among countless other historical figures, ideas, and traditions—you name it. In this post, I'm going to talk about this and in particular Thomas Jefferson. Although I've addressed this topic before, I'm going to approach it in a different way.

The Left's Assault
The Left is at war with history. And in this war, their weapon is time. The world today is better than yesterday, and we should aspire towards objective moral truths. Indeed, the history of mankind is a history of progress towards those truths, but history cannot be understood through a context that is not within its time or place. The Left's application of a 21st century context to events and figures throughout history has resulted in outright war against it. In textbooks and in cities across America, the legacies of Christopher Columbus, Thomas Jefferson, and a litany of others have been rewritten. Andrew Jackson, for instance, was once viewed as a hero of war, the man who won the Second War for American Independence, but now he is viewed as a slave owner whose contributions to America are negated by his acceptance of slavery.

This Left's assault on history is wrong not only because it rewrites history, but because it runs contrary to human nature. If a white man was born into a wealthy family during the early 19th century, he would likely be a slave owner. This is not because the man would understand slavery in an all-encompassing way, but because society would bind him to it. Just as a slave is bound in chains, the slave owner is bound in the chains of a social context. In other words, the institution of slavery is independent of the accomplishments of man—but the Left does not see it this way. The Left sees slavery as an inextricable part of man, and anyone who partook in it is thereby defined by it. The Left's views on history are, in other words, a-historical. Their crusade against statues and other commemorations of history reflect their short-sightedness and unwillingness to see the good in people, to see the contributions people have made, or to see why people fought and died on behalf of liberty.

The Right's Defense
Strictly speaking, there is no defense from the "Right," but rather a defense that is "right." History itself does not change, and although some parts of history are unknown, any speculation must be made in accordance with the context of history. Take, for instance, Thomas Jefferson. While Jefferson created a free society, he maintained an enslaved one. In theory, Jefferson without a doubt understood that all men are created equal (see Jefferson). However, in practice, not all men were. How can one reconcile Jefferson's theory and practice when they are apparently at odds? Answer: through the application of historical context. Logically, because Jefferson understood that all men are created equal, he did not enable slavery, nor did he own slaves because he thought that they were not equal, but for a different reason. Under his presidency, Jefferson enabled slavery and owned slaves because he took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. In the context of early America, abolishing slavery was 1. not feasible and 2. would have resulted in outright war between the states. To preserve the Constitution and to preserve the Union, Jefferson was bound to the institution of slavery by the context of his time. If war broke out among states during the early republic, the damage would have been irreparable—think, Britain invaded the United States just three years after Jefferson left office. Society was not ready for war, and society was not ready to abolish slavery. Jefferson understood this and he did his job.

Conclusion
Understanding history does not justify slavery nor any other stain on the history of man, but it allows us to appreciate Jefferson's contributions to the United States and to the world without appreciating the context in which those contributions were made. His legacy deserves to be preserved, protected, and defended. His legacy is not defined by the Left's assault, but by history—a history that is right.

Citations
Jefferson, Thomas. Summary View of the Rights of British-America, in Colonies to Nation, 234. "The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies, where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state. But previous to the enfranchisement of the slaves we have, it is necessary to exclude all further importations from Africa...preferring the immediate advantages of a few African corsairs to the lasting interests of the American states, and to the rights of human nature, deeply wounded by this infamous practice."
Jefferson, Thomas. Sixth Annual Message (1806), in Writings of Jefferson, 3:421. As president, [Jefferson] implored Congress to "withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights which have been so long continued on the unoffending inhabitants of Africa, and which the morality, the reputation, and the best interests of our country, have long been eager to proscribe."
Jefferson, Thomas. Notes on the State of Virginia (1783), Query 6, in Portable Thomas Jefferson, 96-97. "The [Native American] women are submitted to unjust drudgery. This I believe is the case with every barbarous people. With such, force is law. The stronger sex therefore imposes on the weaker. It is civilization alone which replaces women in the enjoyment of their natural equality. That first teaches us to subdue the selfish passions, and to respect those rights in others which we value in ourselves."

I encourage anyone who agrees or disagrees with me, or has a comment or question, to post below. Otherwise, my contributions to this forum might become less frequent, and nobody wants that. Yes, this is a threat.

paragraph spammer

I like to preface my post that I'm an extreme free speech advocate. I have a tremendous respect for the focal voices of the free speech movement in western academia (Jorden Peterson, Bret Weinstein, and the like). No one should have the ability to strip a fellow person of their ability to discuss issues no matter how the speech could be considered offensive or harmful to others. For it is within our ability as a society through discourse to arrive at proper conclusions and disprove others through flaws within their own logic. Now that's been prefaced I would like to share the common ground that we hold before I dive into where I believe we may diverge.

I do agree with an argument posed within your third paragraph. The passing of judgement over moral character flaws no matter how egregious does not dismiss the accomplishments of the person in question. Oj Simpson (Don't think this will that controversial) despite being found innocent by the criminal court is found guilty by that of larger society. It would simply be an inaccurate statement to say that Oj is not talented athlete or that he should be credited for his accomplishments despite his violation of well established moral tenant of murdering a fellow person. Same would argument would go for Franklin D. Roosevelt violation of a moral tenant of cheating on his wedful partner. His black mark on this character does not take away from his contribution as a leader during the Great Depression and World War 2. We cannot simply deny these characters a spot on the history books for they have left their mark on our society They should be credited for credit is due. These examples extend to Andrew Jackson, Christopher Columbus, George Washington, and men of the like who have had either positive contribution or influence upon human history despite flaws in their characters. Morals are always in a state of flux and change as their societies do as well. Why not be moraling acceptable in today's day and age they within their legal means within their day of age.
However I break with your argument is on the idea that the left has embarked itself on a "War on History" as its been coined.
Much like any and all other fields of academia, we should ourself put fourth a hypothesis that best captures of the data that we have the time. Test said hypothesis to see if it accurately captures and is then reinforced by our data set. We work off said theory until new data arises or a more accurate theory arises. We ourself must be analytical to arrive at "Truth". History, I believe operates in the same way. For history itself does change over time in contrary to what you've written in your piece. For it is our understanding of history that makes up the composition of history. I will provide an example written by someone way more well articulated then me and that is Nadia Abu El Haj's 1996 "Translating Truths". (If you can't find a free PDF online and wish to take a read please send me your email and I will send you a PDF file that I got from a class 3 years ago.) Nadia Abu El Haj puts forward an argument that the nation of Israel has undermined palestian history in order to provide justification for a jewish state by providing historical evidence of a jewish state in through archaeology work within the nation. Her point summarized are that Israel directs funding for sites towards one who seek to to research the jewish periods mentioned in the bible. At the same time providing very little funding to ones who seek to research other time periods which would have stronger evidence of other periods (Arabic, Ottomon, etc). This is even goes to points of at archaeology digging digging straight towards jewish time periods destroying higher layers of Arabc nature. This can even go as far of radical leaps despite the evidence to back up claims that support a national narrative (Jerusalem's Burnt house's women and the spear). These works build to make an overriding historical narrative that's not entirely accurate to support a particular narrative and dismiss another.
Of course what I've been describing is framing. It's easy to use certain pieces of historical fact to create a historical narrative. You can derive human history just as easy in marxist, liberalism, or that of realism. Throughout the ages and even in modern day we constantly debate and reframe our narratives. We need to have the ability to be analytical and re-evaluate historical narratives in order to refine our ideas and in the end find truth. We should be quick to champion success of our forth fathers as we should be able to fault them. For example we should put stock and praise Thomas Jefferson/ other founding fathers for the establishment of our constitution and declaration of independence who ideas were revolutionary at the time. However but this does not leave them immune to criticism. No one is unfathomable. Leaving out facts in order to serve a larger narrative would lead to dishonesty. We need to have healthy discussions on history and provide multiple points of view for each of historical evidence that they are constructed on. We cannot dispute their efforts and recognize their work that formed our modern society. But in other discussions such as race relations we should be able to state their faults. For it is not war on history but instead a search for the truth of history. Agree or disagree. It's an argument worth having.

That's my quick take on everything. Like your post man. Well written and I agree with a lot. I don't like modern left movements in the USA. I like hearing all sides and calling bullshit on everyone. Republicans and Dems alike. I'm a libertiran if you were curious.

Hopefully my response could be understood. My quick on the issues are posted below.
Confederate Flags: (Government buildings should not fly them. Don't support a time of insurrection against the federal governmentthat led to 500,000 americans death. But hell the fuck yeah to flying them yourslef at your house, truck, etc. Its your right. They mean southern pride to me. Not much else. I like them but down own any)
Thomas Jefferson, Christopher Columbus: (Did a lot and should be recognized.Do have faults that can be talked about. But they are important for our nation's history and did a lot for our modern foundations)

Ecrit par Ivartimewalker, 20.11.2019 at 08:27

In a free society, individuals are able to determine for themselves how to pursue their respective lives in accordance with the law. The law, and in particular the Constitution, has provided the American people with a moral and political standard by which to judge the actions of men past, present, and future. The Constitution is grounded in natural law derived from truth, which is why the United States is the freest society to have ever existed. A government grounded in natural law is requisite for the functioning of a free society, and clearly such law is incompatible with the institution of slavery. But if the United States is governed by a Constitution grounded in natural law, how was institution of slavery enabled? Because a perfectly free society is unobtainable by an imperfect species.

To establish a more perfect society, the Declaration of Independence lists four truths that only secure the pre-existing rights of man, and does not create new ones:

• "[A]ll Men are created equal."
  
• "[T]hey are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
  
• "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."
  
• "[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."

These truths secure man's pre-existing rights to equality, a "right" in itself, consent, and revolution.

My point is that truth exists, and the history of man is a history of progress towards an unobtainable truth. For instance, centuries from now the acceptance of abortion, in the context of future generations, might be viewed in a way not unlike we view slavery. Just as slavery was accepted in the southern United States during the 19th century, abortion is accepted in the context of a certain time and place, such as in municipal areas during the 21st century. How should we judge those who partook in slavery and those who partake in abortion? Through the application of context.

Of course we should recognize faults in people, but neither slavery nor abortion are faults in a contextual sense. Those who partook in slavery should not be defined by it because faults imply choice. Were the chains of the context of their time binding enough to absolve them of choice? Did they understand that slavery as an institution is incompatible with natural law? Just like genetic endowment or inheritance, social upbringing is a factor that is largely out of one's control, and faults cannot be derived from such factors. Therefore, in recognition of men like Thomas Jefferson, we cannot judge them based on constants, but the variable decisions that define their contributions to history.

"The left"
"The right"

Ever since the 2010s, the Internet /social media has taken over the Labeling business to crazy heights, unbelievably insane desu.

Ecrit par Tribune Aquila, 19.11.2019 at 22:24

The world today is better than yesterday, and we should aspire towards objective moral truths.

This really exposes how full of shit you are. A few weeks ago, you made a thread promoting a constitution of original intent and describing today as a decline. Now you came we have 'progressed'? How? How is this a state of progression? HIV is highest among 13-24 year olds. 13 year olds... with HIV. How the fuck is that an improvement? Gangs of foreigners, forcing working class girls into sexual slavery? Jewish multi-millionaires like Epstein using child sex slaves to blackmail politicians for Zionist political control? We have lost ancient moral truths in less than three generations.

Ecrit par Tribune Aquila, 19.11.2019 at 22:24

Indeed, the history of mankind is a history of progress towards those truths

No it isn't. This is a Marxist worldview. The march of progress concept is marxism. It's not conservative, or nationalist or reactionary. It's not even socialist. It's a purely Marxist narrative that claims humanity is constantly progressing and believes human progress is linear. It isn't. It's simply not true. Like most neo-cons, or should I say, neo-cohen's, you come from a Trotskyite philosophical foundation. This is why you promote something that is not true, but also a Marxist narrative. You're a fraud and a fossil.

Ecrit par Tribune Aquila, 19.11.2019 at 22:24

This is not because the man would understand slavery in an all-encompassing way, but because society would bind him to it. Just as a slave is bound in chains, the slave owner is bound in the chains of a social context.

There was nothing stopping him hiring workers rather than buying them. He is a product of his time, but he knew exactly what he was doing. Slaves were cheaper and he didn't consider the African as human.

Ecrit par Tribune Aquila, 19.11.2019 at 22:24

The Left sees slavery as an inextricable part of man, and anyone who partook in it is thereby defined by it.

No they don't. This same perspective isn't imposed on a single non-white actor of history. Slavery is ancient, and was widely practised across the world and was only stopped by the sheer will of Europeans forcing a global ban. Jefferson is targeted because he is White. He is targeted because he is a symbol of 'White Power', 'White Identity', and 'White History'. Slavery is merely the excuse. If it wasn't slavery, there would be a myriad of other convoluted reasons.

Ecrit par Tribune Aquila, 19.11.2019 at 22:24

The Left's views on history are, in other words, a-historical. Their crusade against statues and other commemorations of history reflect their short-sightedness

You make out as if these people are naive and uninformed. The goal is pure malice. It is born from a hatred of Whiteness and White achievement, and the people who promote this come from an ancient race of people who hate Europeans. The goal is not to correct some historical wrong, but to mold a future of their interests by deracinating and weakening the virility of White peoples. These people are not stupid, they are not naive and they are not uninformed. They know exactly what they are doing. You know this too, but you pretend not to. Are you really going to pretend that the entire worldview these people promote is based entirely on being naive? Are you really going to pretend that the fact this is aimed at Whites is purely a coincidence because these people object to 'muh liberty'? You fucking liar.

Ecrit par Tribune Aquila, 19.11.2019 at 22:24

Answer: through the application of historical context.

Real and obvious answer: He didn't consider them Men.

Ecrit par Tribune Aquila, 19.11.2019 at 22:24

Logically, because Jefferson understood that all men are created equal

They aren't. The dwarf is not equal to the average sized man. The manlet is not equal to the 6ft man. The ugly is not equal to the adonis. Men were not created equal and they are not equally treated in the eyes of the Law. While the white-collar criminal can defraud hundreds of thousands and lead to the deaths of tens of thousands through his illegal actions, he will face no prison time. He will not have his door caved in by armed men, shoot his dog and threaten his wife. At most, his company will receive a fine, and he himself will receive a bonus from the company. Meanwhile, the innocent blue-collar worker charged with a crime he did not commit will feel the full force of the Law and face the costs of defending himself.

Don't sit there and tell me we are all equal in the eyes of the Law when Jeffrey Epstein enslaved possibly thousands of underage white girls from broken homes into a blackmailing pedophile prostitution ring and only served 6 months in a personal prison where he was only forced to be there for 8 hours of the day. Meanwhile, Nationalists defending themselves against violent anarchists are doing hard time. Why are these violent progressive communists doing community service for beating people with bike locks? Do you want to see the video? We've all seen it. We all saw some trump supporter kneeling on the ground and a California professor cracked his skull open. It took hundreds of independent man hours from people on /pol/ to figure out his identity while fat pigs ate donuts and did fuck all. And when the social pressure mounted, they finally charged him and he wont spend a single day in prison.

How many people died or lost homes during the crisis of 2007-2008? How many peoples lives are effected by Wall Street shenagnigans to this day? Not a single person served time for that. Not one. Are we all equal? STFU.

Don't tell me all men are equal in the eyes of the Law when Epstein, a key witness in the largest corruption scandal in US history was outright murdered in a secure federal security prison and not a single lead is followed by the courts or the media into the links, ties and victims.

We are not equal. We never were and yet this liberal notion persists. It is a lie and it was always a lie, written by wealthy men to placate the lower classes. We will never be equal. We can fight inequality, but we are not equal.

Ecrit par Tribune Aquila, 19.11.2019 at 22:24

Jefferson enabled slavery and owned slaves because he took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. In the context of early America, abolishing slavery was 1. not feasible and 2. would have resulted in outright war between the states. To preserve the Constitution and to preserve the Union, Jefferson was bound to the institution of slavery by the context of his time.

He wasn't bound to owning slaves. He was one of the wealthiest land owners of his time and could easily have hired people for the labor. He chose not to.

Ecrit par Tribune Aquila, 19.11.2019 at 22:24

Understanding history does not justify slavery nor any other stain on the history of man

It wasn't a stain. During it's time, it could be justified and I will not pretend to hold some bullshit moral high ground against it like fake conservatives like you. As a man of my time, I dislike the practise, and if I were a Man of his time, I would likely have opposed slavery only because slavery hurt my local wages. This is one of the reason many people in the North opposed slavery. It hurt industry.

Ecrit par Tribune Aquila, 19.11.2019 at 22:24

His legacy deserves to be preserved, protected, and defended.

Agreed, and he'd hate you, zionist.

Ecrit par Tribune Aquila, 19.11.2019 at 22:24

His legacy is not defined by the Left's assault, but by history—a history that is right.

His legacy is defined by who is in power. History is whatever those with the monopoly of violence decide what it is. The clues in the name: History- His Story. Stories. They tell the stories.