Welcome Guest

History. Two nights ago, my wife and i attended a lecture

Posted on: May 16, 2019 at 13:16:36 CT
hokie VT
Member For:
3.70 yrs
M.O.B. Votes:
at the virginia museum of history and culture (or something).

It was about FDR, D-day and winston churchill. The speaker was a brit author, nigel hamilton. He was very good, on a book tour i think.

Anyway, he makes the point, dispositively i would argue, that churchill was adamantly opposed to the D-day invasion. Most historians he contends, deny or ignore that.

Churchill who was by virtually any and all accounts a great man and a great leader at a time when his nation and the world needed him to be one, was against a plan that proved to be arguably the most important military operation in the last millennium.

But history has chosen to ignore the fact that the great man got this one wrong...

My point: Assuming that hamilton is correct and that churchill was in fact against the invasion and was wrong in his objections, the writers and teachers of history decided not to hold him accountable for his error in judgement. Especially since the invasion happened anyway, why sully the reputation of a great man...?

Is this the purpose of historians and teachers, to protect those who they consider to be great men? And by extension, is it their purpose to expose and condemn those that the historians and teachers think to be lesser men?

My point as it pertains to today's scholarly thought and writing, and highlander should appreciate this: Will today's historians and tomorrow's teachers ignore the scandals and the corruption and the anti constitutional acts of barrack obama to spare the "great man" the humiliation to be derived from an accurate recording of history?

History's stenographers tend to be academics, media figures and politicians. Those tend to be liberal and those that are not liberal tend to be weak, stupid and too cowardly to present the truth, lest they be called names.

What will our grandchildren and their children be taught as the legacy of obama, fat hillary clinton, and others of this era?

My point as it pertains to our readings of history for the past half century: What can we say that we know FOR CERTAIN about the lessons we were taught about our own revolution, our civil war and WWI and WWII? Recall my previous missives regarding the VT class on the civil war where the idiot professor proclaimed that General Pickett of picket's charge hid in a barn during the assault where he would be safe. Recall that i called him on it and he lamely, quickly and vaguely "corrected" his statement in the following class.

Who is available to correct historical errors reported as facts about the alamo, the founding at jamestown or the battle of hastings?

"History is written by the winners." That i think, has been true forever. How much does it make you doubt what you know?

So, do you think that going forward history will be more accurately recorded and reported due to all the media and disparate sources of reporting, or will it be even more biased given the greater level of bias and hate and polarization in the nation and the world of 2019?

Food for thought.
Report Message

Please explain why this message is being reported.




History. Two nights ago, my wife and i attended a lecture - hokie VT - 5/16 13:16:36
     Nothing will be allowed to tarnish the - MUTGR MU - 5/16 15:08:41
     You must have copied and pasted that...I thought anyone that - DoltfromSTL MU - 5/16 14:41:25
     lol (nm) - pickle MU - 5/16 13:53:22
          Damned insightful, pickle. nm - redngray MU - 5/16 14:06:49
     I don't think we can conclude definitely that Churchill - GA Tiger MU - 5/16 13:50:52

©2019 Fanboards L.L.C. — Our Privacy Policy   About Tigerboard