From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv
On 2026-07-02 9:45 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Listening to NPR's 1A (for First Amendment) talk show, they profiled a podcast that purports to explain modern attitudes by lokking to
history, specifically history from an academic perspective about how
whites treated Indians and ever since, white mythologized history to
cover up crimes. Dutifully, they recounted an instance in which George Washington gave written instructions ordering crops and seed crops
burned of an agrarian tribe that had aligned with the British during the Revolutionary War.
Now, I have no idea if Washington was truly concerned that this tribe
would actively participate in war, making them a threat, or if
Washington said to himself, Hey! This is a great opportunity to commit
that massacre I've always dreamed of, a war crime in contravention of the Geneva Conventions. I can get away with it knowing that it will be
forgotten by history, since Our Side will win!
Some of these academics are beyond ludicrous, especially when they
measure historic figures by rules that DID NOT EXIST until decades (or centuries) after the events being considered. The Geneva Conventions
didn't exist until long after your Revolutionary War and no rational
person could demand compliance with it before it even existed.
It's the same with slavery, if perhaps a little less obvious. I don't
think there are very many people who TODAY think slavery is a reasonable institution: I think pretty much everyone thinks it is utterly
deplorable. But during the Revolutionary War and the drafting of the
American Constitution, this was not a given. A substantial proportion of
the public, including both slave-owners and those who didn't own slaves,
saw slavery as an ancient institution that had been around far back into
human history, in fact, as far back as anyone knew. No doubt there were pockets of people that hated the notion and institution of slavery even
then but there were also those who thought it was the natural order of
things. Referring to slavery as the "original sin" of the Ameerican Constitution - as some historians do - is using hindsight to make the assessment.
Because we were not taught this in school, I am now obligated to believe
the latter, if I listen to the academic.
And, because it's an atrocity against civilians, we must label it a "genocide" in modern historical revisionism. Because everything is a genocide.
This completely contradicts everything I was taught to believe as a
yout' about the Revolutionary War. Of course we were told that our side,
the right side, fought the war so that no civilians were inconvenienced
in any way, let alone killed. Because that's possible in war.
No, we were taught things like how many died at Valley Forge in winter
under harsh conditions. There was no food and no shelter and our brave
men died of exposure, perhaps not living long enough to die of
starvation. It was a strategic point on the Delaware River, yes, but the British weren't literally there because winter, sunning themselves
instead in Bermuda or something.
Is that an atrocity? A war crime? These were Washington's orders and
those men were directly in his command.
I just don't remember being taught that war is safe, like everyone else.
I was absent that day.
Now that I've been confronted with History is Not Like a Bowl of Cherries,
I can no longer think about any of the good in America and what I should
be grateful for having had the fortune of being born here.
--
Rhino
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2