What About History?

In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.  Winston Churchill

History is written by the victors.  Winston Churchill 

War is a racket.  General Smedley D. Butler 

As the above quotes suggest the reading of history is an interesting and challenging enterprise.  The challenge is that so much of what is considered history is in fact revisionist history devised to fit certain narratives.  This is a claim made with full confidence of its veracity.  The below items along with many others substantiate the truth of that statement.  Nonetheless, the idea of revisionist history is sure to spark differing opinions.  The fact of the matter is that there is ample evidence that it exists but people too often tend to want to believe what they want to believe, thinking that responsible historians and authors would not lie or mislead.  As we all know it is merely human to knowingly or not slant what is written based on one's world view.  Nor is absolute history possible in the absence of a complete inventory of sources necessary to accurately record the past.  Writings containing opinions or conjecture may be good (or bad) approximations but they should not to be considered recorded history.  Another flaw facing historians is that errors of fact contained in works they source are too often re-cited which, intended or not, perpetrate inaccuracies.  My view is that it is flawed thinking for anyone, me included, to believe everything historians write.  It goes without saying that all historians are not bad apples who for whatever reason are bent on skewing the past.  But as the items below suggest there are many who intentionally seek to expound their preferred history for their own purposes.  Do your own research if you do not believe these assertions.  

We start with historian Howard Zinn the author of A People's History of the United States.  It is the most popular history book now used in our public schools and even at some colleges and universities.  Here is how he viewed history.  “Objectivity is impossible,” Zinn once remarked, “and it is also undesirable. That is, if it were possible it would be undesirable, because if you have any kind of a social aim, if you think history should serve society in some way; should serve the progress of the human race; should serve justice in some way, then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity.”  In other words he believed history should be written to convey a point of view and promote a desired social outcome.  In his case history was written to extol socialism while demeaning our federal republic.  Quote from the article: "History serving “a social aim” other than the preservation or interpretation of a historical record is precisely what we get in A People’s History of the United States.  Howard Zinn’s 776 page tome."  Your research of this book and its author will reveal leftists who totally agree with Zinn's revisionist work and his socialist philosophy.  So, the fact is that our children are being taught Zinn's revised history.   http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1493

In a book written by Antony C. Sutton entitled Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler the author asserts that much of what we accept as being historical fact is in fact a molding of history to fit a narrative that conforms to what powerful elitists want us to believe.  Here is a short summary of the book's content:  "Professor Antony C. Sutton proves that World War II was not only well planned, it was also extremely profitable—for a select group of financial insiders. Carefully tracing this closely guarded secret through original documents and eyewitness accounts, Sutton documents the roles played by J.P. Morgan, T. W. Lamont, the Rockefeller interests, General Electric Company, Standard Oil, National City Bank, Chase and Manhattan banks, Kuhn, Loeb and Company, and scores of other business elitists."  Here is a quote from Chapter 11 of the book.  "Twentieth-century history, as recorded in Establishment textbooks and journals, is inaccurate. It is a history which is based solely upon those official documents which various Administrations have seen fit to release for public consumption.  But an accurate history cannot be based on a selective release of documentary archives. Accuracy requires access to all documents. In practice, as previously classified documents in the U.S. State Department files, the British Foreign Office, and the German Foreign Ministry archives and other depositories are acquired, a new version of history has emerged; the prevailing Establishment version is seen to be, not only inaccurate, but designed to hide a pervasive fabric of deceit and immoral conduct."  Here is a link to the web version of the book.  http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-hitler.html    Here is Sutton's biography.   http://www.reformation.org/antony-sutton-bio.html   As you review assessments of Sutton you will note that left leaning reviewers lambast him which in essence is to deny the efficacy of his research or asserting that his documented sources are wrong.  He cites his sources just as they do.  To hold this view is to tacitly admit that if his are wrong then theirs may be just as equally wrong.  

Despite it's cost in blood and treasure most Americans consider WW II as a good war.  A war fought with noble intent.  That is the prevailing narrative that persists to this day.  However, there is a small body of work emerging that suggests much of what has been written has taken on an aura of mythology.  This item is offered only to give you a different perspective.  You may agree or disagree but it is certainly worthy of consideration.  Here are several quotes.  "At the outbreak of war in 1939, Britain ruled over the largest colonial empire in history, holding more millions of people against their will than any regime before or since. This vast empire included what is now India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and South Africa.  America's other great wartime ally, the Soviet Union, was, by any objective measure, the most tyrannical or oppressive regime of its time, and a vastly more cruel despotism than Hitler's Germany. As historians acknowledge, the victims of Soviet dictator Stalin greatly outnumber those who perished as a result of Hitler's policies. Robert Conquest, a prominent scholar of twentieth century Russian history, estimates the number of those who lost their lives as a consequence of Stalin's policies as "no fewer than 20 million." / 11  Here is another:  "During the war the United States helped substantially to maintain Stalin's tyranny, and to aid the Soviet Union in oppressing additional millions of Europeans, while also helping Britain to maintain or re-establish its imperial rule over many millions in Asia and Africa. / 12   And another quote, "Paul Fussell, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who served in World War II as a US Army lieutenant, wrote in his acclaimed book Wartime that "the Allied war has been sanitized and romanticized almost beyond recognition by the sentimental, the loony patriotic, the ignorant and the bloodthirsty." / 13  Here is another:  "After "forty months of war duty and five major battles" in which Edgar L. Jones served as "an ambulance driver, a merchant seaman, an Army historian, and a war correspondent," he wrote an article dispelling some myths about the Americans' role in the war. "What kind of war do civilians suppose we fought, anyway?," he told readers of The Atlantic monthly. "We shot prisoners in cold blood, wiped out hospitals, strafed lifeboats, killed or mistreated enemy civilians, finished off the enemy wounded, tossed the dying into a hole with the dead, and in the Pacific boiled the flesh off enemy skulls to make table ornaments for sweethearts, or carved their bones into letter-openers." / 15  And lastly, "Shortly after the end of the war, the victorious powers put Germany's wartime leaders on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity. In doing so, the US and its allies held German leaders to a standard that they did not respect themselves."  This item represents the ugly but inescapable side of the war that historians typically choose not to write about.   http://www.ihr.org/news/weber_ww2_may08.html

Here is a look at what is happening with contemporary Advanced Placement US History in our public schools.  Quote:  "On one level it’s been entertaining to watch the College Board scramble to defend its radical new Advanced Placement U.S. History (APUSH) Framework. When the public can see the truth merely by going to the College Board website and reading the Framework, it’s certainly a challenge to prove that the document isn’t what it clearly is – a leftist polemic that presents American history in a relentlessly negative light. An unfortunate recent performance by College Board vice-president Trevor Packer before a Georgia House study committee suggests that the College Board team is cracking under the strain."   And, "Mr. Packer’s misrepresentations (to use a nice word) about his opponents – made in a public forum in another state – are simply astonishing. Does College Board president David Coleman condone this behavior? Is the College Board so desperate to defend its rewrite of American history, and so bereft of substantive arguments, that it will stoop to falsehoods and slander?"   http://townhall.com/columnists/janerobbins/2014/11/19/ap-us-history--how-low-will-they-go-n1920578 

Calvin Coolidge believed in and conducted his presidency in compliance with the Constitution.  We have not seen the likes of him since.  Instead, current history lauds some successive presidents as great despite their failure to adhere to the their oath of office which reads  “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”   Quote:  "Coolidge sought not just to limit further growth of government but to restore it to what it had been before its expansion under Woodrow Wilson.  Both Coolidge and Warren Harding before him spoke of limited government as “normalcy.”  The expansion that had taken place under Wilson was an aberration.  Unfortunately, soon enough the aberration became the norm.  Since Coolidge left office in 1929, the size of government has exploded.  In Coolidge’s last year in office, federal spending was $3.7 billion.  For fiscal 2014, Obama requested $3.77 trillion, and he got most of what he asked for.  Federal spending for 2014 was approximately 1,000 times what it was in 1928, the last full year of the Coolidge presidency.  Even when adjusted for inflation, federal spending has grown more than 50 times since Coolidge."  http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/10/flashback_when_presidents_respected_the_constitution.html   Here is just one assessment rooted in Coolidge's performance.  It differs from most contemporary assessments which deride his performance while elevating the status of left leaning activist presidents of both parties as opposed to presidents who sought to adhere to their duty to uphold the Constitution.   http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/21/biographer-explains-why-calvin-coolidge-doesnt-rate-well-on-presidential-rankings/

According to this historian the recent Roosevelt series produced by Ken Burns is truth mixed with propaganda.  Assuming this historian knows her subject, and I suspect she does, it will be difficult for average viewers to discern what is truth and what is accidental or purposeful reshaping of history.  http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2014/09/22/amity-shlaes-progressives-enthroned-the-roosevelt-mini-series/   And here.   http://junkscience.com/2014/09/24/ken-burns-propagandist-for-socialist-statism-and-imperial-presidencies/

Here is an example of current day liberal attempts to rewrite the history of the Berlin Wall.   http://www.redstate.com/2014/11/09/liberal-obsession-rewriting-berlin-wall-continues-apace/

It is attitudes like this from some who compose history for their own purposes that forbid truth to prevail while composing their own version of what they want history to be.   http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/famous-christmas-story-ad-stirs-controversy/  

This example represents what some historians did to assure that a former King of Essix was not recognized as a good and generous man who was loved by his subjects.  That fact does not fit their leftist political correctness narrative of the kind of rulers dead white European males were.  Quote:  "For the 9th centuries, Alfred was a very enlightened king who was loved by his people and for this reason he is the only king in English history to be bestowed the moniker “the Great.”  Alfred the Great, the father of England and education king.  So why would the history professors be opposed to a memorial to this great proponent of education?"  The answer to that question is "The truth is that the opposition to Alfred had more to do with what he symbolizes rather than actual history.  Linda Mitchell, who specializes in Medieval history, was one of the protesting professors.  As she explained in a New York Times interview, Alfred “is not a good logo to promote a modern university because virtually any historical figure who had any social or political influence is undoubtedly going to be a D.W.E.M. — dead white European male,” she said, “it would be foolish to choose a symbol so exclusive and effective in emphasizing the straight white male power structure of history.”  http://www.stubbornthings.org/left-distortion-history/

If you want to influence the thinking and behavior of the next generation use school textbooks filled with false information, misinformation, propaganda, omissions, etc. and you will be successful.  Here is just one example of schools in Tennessee which were not only using textbooks filled with problem areas but also were promoting the religion of Islam.  Quote:  "During Huffman’s [Tennessee's Education Commissioner who has since resigned] tenure, not only was the controversial federal-government program Common Core imposed on schools, but the Tennessee Textbook Commission adopted books that were found to contain more than 700 problematic sections."  and  "PJTN said the presentation “seemed to be very biased and inaccurate, badly out of date, and had no indication of the author/publisher, although five slides had an attribution of CAIR,” the Council on American-Islamic Relations. CAIR, founded by the Muslim Brotherhood as a U.S. front, has seen numerous leaders indicted for terrorism and was itself named an unindicted co-conspirator in a plot to fund the Palestinian jihadist group Hamas."   http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/islam-anti-semitism-sneak-into-tennessee-textbooks/

While this is not history per se it is related and is definitely revisionism at work.  This public school is teaching 8 year olds that government is responsible for doling out rights.  The implication being that rights are not found in the Constitution nor do they teach that the Declaration of Independence clearly states that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."  Now how is it that this school can get away with propagandizing for the government and not teach facts?  Quote: "The whole point of “inalienable rights” as opposed to the government granting rights is that government can’t take away inalienable rights.  They are inherent. They are given to you by the Creator. Our founders wrote this into the Declaration of Independence. The US Constitution lays out limitations on the government, not the citizens. The entire point of our nation’s revolution and founding was to fight back against an oppressive government that infringed upon the rights of the people.  Liberal Progressives want children to grow up believing that they get their rights from the government because that belief lessens the opposition when government tries to take those rights away."   http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/103054369668/ohio-public-school-brainwashes-8-year-olds-rights

Separation of church and state is a mantra tossed about as dogma by secular humanists and left leaning politicians, academics, pundits, media types and atheists.  Anyone with an open mind and who is honest in their search and study of the facts will find that unadulterated history refutes their position as applied to our founding, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.  Court rulings and academic proclamations offer respective rulings and opinions but they do not change historical facts.  The so called basis for the use of the term "separation of church and state" is attributed to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson but which was not a part of the founding documents.  It was not until 1947 and 1948 that Jefferson's letter was used by the Supreme Court to change the intent of the founders.  Quote: "The high court took the same position in widely publicized decisions in 1947 and 1948, asserting in the latter case, McCollum v. Board of Education, that, "in the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" Since McCollum forbade religious instruction in public schools, it appeared that the court had used Jefferson's "wall" metaphor as a sword to sever religion from public life, a result that was and still is intolerable to many Americans."  See the history of that letter here as documented in the Library of Congress.   http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html   and then read this which provides substantive support for how secularist persist in trying to scrub the truth from history.   Quote: "The biggest censors in America are liberals. They refuse to have an open discussion of the bad science behind evolution, compare critics of man-made global warming alarmists as comparable to holocaust deniers, and work tirelessly to scrub every vestige of the Bible’s influence on America’s founding."  A recent example at the next link comes from the state of Texas. I am convinced that a major source of America’s problems reside in our nation’s government run public schools which too often serve as hotbeds of leftist propaganda and outright censorship. http://eaglerising.com/11772/textbooks-attacked-saying-moses-influenced-founding-fathers/

There are many more such examples some egregious; others are not.  Nonetheless the purpose of this piece is to demonstrate that much of the history we read may be right, about right, slightly wrong or totally wrong.  Any message being conveyed usually depends on the author's intent or particular point of view.  The point is that history is what it is and not what we or anybody else wants it to be.  That is why honest unbiased history is so important.  Without the absolute truth or as close to it as we can get we fail to learn the lessons history can teach us.  Our failure to learn those history lessons is plaguing us today.

George Burns