Progressivism Destroys Intellectual Honesty

I. Introduction

The 1619 Project, which originated in the New York Times, is the most outrageous fraud on this nation in 100 years. It is nothing more than a race hustler’s post-modernist rewrite of American history, explicitly intended to stir racial resentment in this nation for political ends. That is evil.

II. Wilentz honestly challenges the 1619 Project’s accuracy.

According to Wilentz, the 1619 Project promotes “a narrow, highly ideological view of the American past, according to which white supremacy has been the nation’s core principle and chief mission ever since its founding.” He explains more in a recent article, The 1619 Project and Living in Truth:

III. Wilentz destroys his article’s integrity with his obsessive need to lob entirely false and dishonest attacks against conservatives who have made the same arguments he is making.

IV. As a general matter, Wilentz is either fatally naïve, completely blind, or dishonestly partisan when it comes to the left’s role in creating an intellectual mindset supporting and promoting the utterly fallacious, but very damaging, 1619 Project.

V. The Times’s response to the five historians’ letter is a perfect distillation of the historic dishonesty and modern political activism behind the 1619 Project and American leftism in general.

VI. In the end, when given a choice between wisdom and blind partisanship—the red pill or the blue—Wilentz chose the blue pill and the consolation of aligning himself with a political movement that exists to destroy America — and which ironically enough, also means destroying much of Wilentz’s life’s work.

Source: Bookworm Room

HISTORY OF THE AMERICANS: Sidebar: Considering Columbus Counterfactuals!…

This is our special Columbus Day episode, dropped on “old school” Columbus Day, instead of the “Canadian Thanksgiving” Columbus Day long-weekend holiday. This episode is not actually about the Columbus Day social war, except in passing. Instead, we consider the larger consequences of Columbus’s “Great Enterprise,” and various counterfactuals — “what if” moments that might have made it all go quite differently. Along the way we say some challenging things that will irritate almost everybody, but we know you are only listening because of your resolutely open minds!

Source: HISTORY OF THE AMERICANS: Sidebar: Considering Columbus Counterfactuals!…

BAD HISTORY: The Historical Falsification of Columbus’ ‘Crimes’

BAD HISTORY: The Historical Falsification of Columbus’ ‘Crimes:’ In recent decades, Christopher Columbus has been demonized out of ignorance, hatred, and spite.

There are misconceptions, some of them benevolent, some malignant, some neutral, that, repeated, persist for a very long time in spite of their not being true. One such misconception is that Christopher Columbus set out on his voyage to dispel the popular view of his time that the world was flat. In reality, that idea was an urban legend that originated in the mid-1800s. No one, as far back as the Ancient Greeks, really thought that the earth was flat.

But there are other misconceptions about Columbus that are extremely malignant. In recent decades, Christopher Columbus has been demonized. He has been called a war criminal, a thief, a rapist, a bumbling fool, and someone who carried out genocide. These accusations have supposedly been the basis for the recent vandalism and destruction of statues in America of Christopher Columbus in the cities of Richmond, St. Paul, Baltimore, Miami, Wilmington, San Antonio, Sacramento, St. Louis, Detroit, TrentonBuffalo, Boston, and Providence (in Providence, the vandalism was done by a middle school teacher). In states controlled by Democrats, Columbus Day has been replaced by Indigenous Peoples’ Day, particularly during anniversaries of his discovering the New World (an instance of cultural appropriation), while some Republicans in Congress are trying to replace Columbus Day with Juneteenth Day.

There is just one problem. The “crimes” that these individuals — and they curiously seem to be in a perpetual state of hysterics — attribute to him is a total fabrication. Not true. Not true at all. They are fictional.
….
There is not one single historical source in existence that substantiates any of the “crimes.” Not one. None!

Consult, not secondary sources written centuries later by individuals with a political agenda, but primary (i.e., contemporary) sources in the original Spanish: Los Cuatro Viajes del Almirante y su Testamento, and, Brevísima Relación de la Destrucción de las Indias, both by Bartolomé de las Casas. De las Casas, as every schoolchild in the Caribbean and Spain knows, was The Apostle of the Indians, an indefatigable defender of the Indians who fulminated endlessly against the Spanish crimes on the indigenous people. More importantly, he chronicled the atrocities against the Indians, fearlessly naming the criminals. Not once does he mention Columbus as an evildoer. On the contrary, he documented the exact opposite, that Columbus repeatedly defended the Indians against Spanish depredations.

….

Here is an example of Zinn’s lies: “At one part of the island he got into a fight with Indians who refused to trade as many bows and arrows as he and his men wanted. Two Arawaks were run through with swords and bled to death.”

This incident occurred on the return trip from his first voyage. Hitherto, whenever Indians had been encountered, they had initially run away, thinking that the explorers were cannibals. The Arawaks/Tainos were constantly terrorized by seafaring cannibals. Cannibals ranged widely among the islands in boats, landing and capturing their meals; they would take them home alive and if, they were adult males, were castrated in order to improve their flavor. The cannibals (aka Caribs/Caribes/Canibas) had a technological advantage: powerful bows and arrows, whereas the other Indians only had sticks. When it was clear that the Spaniards were not cannibals, the Indians welcomed them, thinking that they came from heaven. A brisk trade ensued for the gold nuggets that the natives wore. In Hispaniola, the gold was so abundant that nuggets could be found among the tree roots (gold was the only metal they knew since they were still in the Stone Age). Initially, he kidnapped a handful of Indians in order to learn the language, which he learned in a matter of days; later as they made landfall in numerous places, they refused to go back home and, in one instance, another native went aboard the ship wanting to travel with the explorers in spite of his family’s pleas to return (if an alien spaceship landed, wouldn’t you like to travel back with them?). Incidentally, all the natives were naked, not wearing even a loin cloth, and some tribes’ members were as white as Europeans. Again, and again, Columbus ordered his men not to steal anything and to respect the Indians, to trade, not steal.

When Columbus encountered the island that Zinn mentions, the dynamics were different. The natives (cannibals, not Arawaks/Tainos) did not initially run away but went towards the lifeboat with their bows and arrows, screaming and “looking ferocious.” Undoubtedly, they were surprised that anyone would be so stupid as to come to them. The natives were told to leave their bows, arrows, and ropes off to one side. Columbus traded for two bows (he had collected plants, animals, foods, and crafts to take back as proof of his voyage), but the natives refused to trade any more. When the Spaniards were about to leave, the fifty cannibals ran to their bows and arrows and the ropes with which to tie up their dinner and rushed to the seven Spaniards to overwhelm them. For once, their dinner fought back. One cannibal was stabbed in the buttocks and another in the chest, whereupon they all fled. None “bled to death.”

During the second voyage, they entered a deserted village, they found a human arm in the process of being roasted and pots full of human bones. The captured noncannibal women begged to be taken away.

They also found out that the cannibals had a curious arrangement: their women lived apart in another island; periodically, they got together to mate. The boys would then be brought up by the men and the girls by the women. The women could use the bow and arrow and were described as “very stout.” One of these women tripped up a sailor, jumped on him, and almost strangled him to death, but he was saved by the arrival of his companions.

Incidentally, cannibalism was very popular among the indigenous people in South America, not so much in North America.

So, as can be seen, Zinn’s account has just enough details to seem truthful. But a mountain of details is deliberately left out that gives a totally different picture. This is a common tactic. By being brief, yet accusatory, it is like a drive-by shooting.

And this brings us to Michele de Cuneo’s letter, written somewhat around 1511, wherein he relates that Columbus gave him a young girl to rape during the voyage back. This is seen as contemporary proof of Columbus’ demonic character. There is just one little problem. It is a fraud. Aside from internal inconsistencies, the letter also mentions temples in the Caribbean. There were no temples in the Caribbean; the naked Indians lived in crude huts. Temples would come into play later, after Cortes’ conquest of the Aztecs (1519-1521).

Source: BAD HISTORY: The Historical Falsification of Columbus’ ‘Crimes’

RTWT.

Those Nasty White People

If you search for references to potlach you will find gobs of positive portrayals of it as a gift giving festival with great symbolism as the giving or destroying valuables shows how wealthy you are.  Both the Canadian and American governments banned potlaches for many years because of those mean old missionaries.   I had a vague memory of the potlach that was so dark that the laws made sense.  With a little digging, I found it here.

The destruction of goods as a show of wealth could include either the freeing or killing of slaves, who were usually acquired specifically for potlach.

Source: Those Nasty White People

The Surprising Origins of Critical Race Theory

The origins of Critical Race Theory have a dark history.

Source: The Surprising Origins of Critical Race Theory

Critical Race Theory (CRT) has been cited as an offshoot of Karl Marx’s theory of class struggle, which was designed to pit one class against another so as to foment worker-led revolutions. It is also widely accepted that the Marxian Frankfurt School in Germany reworked Marx’s “social conflict theory” in the 1950s by adding “race” to their long list of “oppressed” minorities. But historically, the Frankfurt School theorists were latecomers to the racial theory table. They were not the originators of Critical Race Theory. A revolutionary socialist movement had already existed decades before in Germany. These racial justice warriors sought to pit one race against another and encourage the oppressed to overthrow the oppressor. They called themselves German National Socialists.

 

Early Communist Utopia: Like An HOA For Vegans Who Hate Fun

Author Louisa May Alcott got dragged off to one of these, writes Lawrence W. Reed at FEE:

Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women was published more than a century and a half ago–in 1868–and all these decades later, it remains a popular novel. What the author’s many fans may not know is that as a young girl, Alcott learned firsthand just how ridiculous a utopian socialist commune is.Alcott was just 11 when her father moved the family to the experimental village of Fruitlands in Massachusetts. It was not a promising place. Elizabeth Dunn at History.com writes,

Fruitlands was founded in Harvard, Massachusetts, as a self-sufficient farming community by Charles Lane and Bronson Alcott, two men with no practical experience in either farming or self-sufficiency…Settlers were forbidden to eat meat, consume stimulants, use any form of animal labor, create artificial light, enjoy hot baths or drink anything but water. Lane’s ideas later evolved to include celibacy within marriage, which caused no small amount of friction between him and his most loyal disciple, Bronson Alcott, who had relocated his wife and four daughters [Louisa being one of them] to Fruitlands in a characteristic fit of enthusiasm.

At least 119 utopian, communal or socialist settlements were founded in the early 1800s in America. As most of the country reveled in newly won freedoms and a market economy that allowed the enterprising to create wealth, a few malcontents sought a different life. They spurned private property in favor of sharing material things in common. They preferred a “planned” community over the supposed “chaos” of the market’s spontaneous order. They thought if they just worked out on paper what their preferred society would look like, everything and everybody would just fall into place.

Source: Early Communist Utopia: Like An HOA For Vegans Who Hate Fun

See also history.com.

The Reichstag fire and the Dems’ Hitlerian response to Jan. 6

Sometimes Godwin’s Law doesn’t apply.

Usually, Hitler comparisons to American politicians and political party’s are erroneous and overwrought. But sometimes they’re very accurate.

The way American Thinker is formatted, it happens on very rare occasions that excellent content gets rolled off the front page and, as far as most readers are concerned, effectively vanished. Such is the case with F. Charles Parker IV’s As long as we’re making World War II comparisons….

We should all try our best to avoid reductio ad Hitlerum because what’s happening in America almost never mirrors what happens in Hitler’s Germany. Trump, for example, was the opposite of Hitlerian, despite the left’s frantic efforts to make the comparison. Trump was incredibly philo-Semitic. Trump sought to shrink, not expand, government, which is the exact opposite of what a socialist leader (as Hitler was) would do. Trump encouraged private citizens to own guns, which is the opposite of what any tyrant would do. And Trump, rather than seeking world domination, believed that America should be less involved in the affairs of other countries. He was the un-Hitler.

However, sometimes the comparisons are so apt that you really can’t help but see connections. Since Biden has been in office, he’s collected anti-Semites into his orbit and shown real sympathy for those who seek Israel’s destruction. He’s been hellbent on expanding the government, including supporting economic policies that will destroy the middle class. He’s been open about his desire to disarm all citizens. So far, the only thing he hasn’t done is made a bid for world domination.

And then there’s January 6 — and this is where F. Charles Parker IV’s post comes in:

When the Reichstag burned, Hitler had become Chancellor, but Germany was terribly divided, and his authority was not secure. Because a demented Dutch communist was accused of setting the fire, Hitler manufactured what would be termed today an existential national crisis. The Nazis termed the fire a prelude to an uprising or insurrection. He arrested many communists and managed to get enacted emergency powers. A law titled the Enabling Act gave him new powers of suppression with authority to pass laws by executive order, without involving legislative bodies. Ultimately, he manipulated the existential crisis to suppress all opposition, including the communists and social democrats.

Source: The Reichstag fire and the Dems’ Hitlerian response to Jan. 6