Obama, the Left, and Historical Revisionism

[BobaFett1]

Obama, the Left, and Historical Revisionism

Written on Friday, by David L. Goetsch


One of the principal strategies of the left for the past 40 years has been the dumbing down of America’s public schools. Dumbing down public education at all levels is how the left is transforming Americans into a flock of naïve, ill-informed, easily-led sheep. A major component of the dumbing down process is historical revisionism. Historical revisionism is the concept liberals use to revise America’s past to suit their agenda in the present.

One of the most prolific prac ioners of historical revisionism is President Obama. When it suits his purposes to do so, the president will simply make up history that never happened or distort what did happen until it appears to support his agenda. President Obama’s most infamous act of historical revisionism came when he claimed that not only is American not a Christian nation, it is one of the world’s largest Muslim nations. To make such an absurd statement, Barack Obama had to ignore more than 200 years of historical evidence, evidence that is readily available and clearly contradicts him.

Historical revisionists such as President Obama employ one or more of five methods for distorting America’s history to suit their purposes: 1) deconstructionism, 2) post-structuralism, 3) modernism, 4) minimalism, and 5) academic cronyism. Thinking people who respect and admire the truth no matter where it leads need to understand these five methods, recognize when they are being employed, and challenge the liberals who use them to distort the truth. The best way to challenge historical revisionists is to call the world’s attention to their use of these five wrong-headed, deceitful, and intellectually lazy methods.



Deconstructionism is the practice of deliberately searching for the negatives in America’s heroes and then emphasizing those negatives to the exclusion of all positives. If the real human foibles of great historic figures are not sufficiently negative to undermine their standing in the eyes of Americans, deconstructionists simply make up supposed character flaws that are. For example, one of the favorite targets of historical deconstructionists is George Washington. Because Washington owned slaves liberals discount everything else he did—little things like leading a ragtag Army to victory over the mighty British in our War of Independence, turning down the opportunity to be America’s first king and instead serving as our first president, and quietly holding the Cons utional Convention together so that the most famous government do ent in the history of the world could be completed and approved.

Post-structuralism is the practice of rejecting moral absolutes and encouraging people to come to their own interpretations of history. This, of course, is a convenient method for liberals who do not like the truth of American history. Modernism is the practice of judging historical figures according to today’s social norms. Of course when historical figures are judged out of context, instead of by the norms of the times in which they actually lived, their character and contributions are easier to attack and disparage. Minimalism is the practice of oversimplifying history and reducing it to a level that requires no thinking. I call this practice “bumper-sticker” history. The problem with minimalism is that people are complex beings with multilayered motives and agendas. Consequently, historic events can rarely be explained on a bumper sticker.

Academic cronyism is the practice of academic historians quoting each other instead of relying on original source material. Professors set themselves up as experts and quote each other rather than doing the hard work of ferreting out original source material and using it. It works like this. One so-called expert makes a claim about an individual or historic event that by design or carelessness is wrong. Then other professors quote the erroneous material of this so-called expert and the process repeats itself until fiction becomes enshrined as fact. I encourage readers to look for these five revisionist methods of liberals in the speeches of politicians (especially President Obama), the textbooks of their children, and the words of political commentators. There is an agenda behind these methods that is not good for America.



Read more: http://patriotupdate.com/articles/ob...#ixzz2Rrf4eglr

[rjv]

post-structuralism and deconstructionalism deal with the "text within the text" of language and so they 'deconstruct' literature, history, and language so to speak. they are not isolated to 'conservative'works but do take on cultural considerations such as how much of academia has been dominated by western male thought. much of the academic left detest deconstructionalists such as jacque derrida's works. they even often challenged derrida's works as academic discourse. political dissidents such as noam chomsky have no high regard for deconstructionalism because the aforementioned schools of thought question the reality of structures, or at the very least, where they stand in a hierarchical sense.

it is stark hyperbole to purport that these schools of thought are dominant modes of thought today. the apogee for this movement was in the 1960's. of course, they still have a place in academics and are still taught but nowhere near to the extent of indoctrination the OP seems to suggest. obama is much more of a disciple of friedman's chicago school than he is of umberto eco or roland barthes. that's not even close.

[boutons_deux]

Obama, the Left, and Historical Revisionism

Written on Friday, by David L. Goetsch


One of the principal strategies of the left for the past 40 years has been the dumbing down of America’s public schools. Dumbing down public education at all levels is how the left is transforming Americans into a flock of naïve, ill-informed, easily-led sheep. A major component of the dumbing down process is historical revisionism. Historical revisionism is the concept liberals use to revise America’s past to suit their agenda in the present.

One of the most prolific prac ioners of historical revisionism is President Obama. When it suits his purposes to do so, the president will simply make up history that never happened or distort what did happen until it appears to support his agenda. President Obama’s most infamous act of historical revisionism came when he claimed that not only is American not a Christian nation, it is one of the world’s largest Muslim nations. To make such an absurd statement, Barack Obama had to ignore more than 200 years of historical evidence, evidence that is readily available and clearly contradicts him.

Historical revisionists such as President Obama employ one or more of five methods for distorting America’s history to suit their purposes: 1) deconstructionism, 2) post-structuralism, 3) modernism, 4) minimalism, and 5) academic cronyism. Thinking people who respect and admire the truth no matter where it leads need to understand these five methods, recognize when they are being employed, and challenge the liberals who use them to distort the truth. The best way to challenge historical revisionists is to call the world’s attention to their use of these five wrong-headed, deceitful, and intellectually lazy methods.



Deconstructionism is the practice of deliberately searching for the negatives in America’s heroes and then emphasizing those negatives to the exclusion of all positives. If the real human foibles of great historic figures are not sufficiently negative to undermine their standing in the eyes of Americans, deconstructionists simply make up supposed character flaws that are. For example, one of the favorite targets of historical deconstructionists is George Washington. Because Washington owned slaves liberals discount everything else he did—little things like leading a ragtag Army to victory over the mighty British in our War of Independence, turning down the opportunity to be America’s first king and instead serving as our first president, and quietly holding the Cons utional Convention together so that the most famous government do ent in the history of the world could be completed and approved.

Post-structuralism is the practice of rejecting moral absolutes and encouraging people to come to their own interpretations of history. This, of course, is a convenient method for liberals who do not like the truth of American history. Modernism is the practice of judging historical figures according to today’s social norms. Of course when historical figures are judged out of context, instead of by the norms of the times in which they actually lived, their character and contributions are easier to attack and disparage. Minimalism is the practice of oversimplifying history and reducing it to a level that requires no thinking. I call this practice “bumper-sticker” history. The problem with minimalism is that people are complex beings with multilayered motives and agendas. Consequently, historic events can rarely be explained on a bumper sticker.

Academic cronyism is the practice of academic historians quoting each other instead of relying on original source material. Professors set themselves up as experts and quote each other rather than doing the hard work of ferreting out original source material and using it. It works like this. One so-called expert makes a claim about an individual or historic event that by design or carelessness is wrong. Then other professors quote the erroneous material of this so-called expert and the process repeats itself until fiction becomes enshrined as fact. I encourage readers to look for these five revisionist methods of liberals in the speeches of politicians (especially President Obama), the textbooks of their children, and the words of political commentators. There is an agenda behind these methods that is not good for America.



Read more: http://patriotupdate.com/articles/ob...#ixzz2Rrf4eglr

boba is here WAY IN OVER HIS HEAD

[RandomGuy]

Strawman, strawman, strawman... bla bla bla

About the only comment I could make is that this entire thing is a crude distortion, and not worth countering.

It makes up about what Obama said/thinks, and what the "left" says/thinks, and then proceeds to counter that fake made up position, in a fake outrage bull kind of way that passes for "facts" from a lot of conservatives.

[RandomGuy]

post-structuralism and deconstructionalism deal with the "text within the text" of language and so they 'deconstruct' literature, history, and language so to speak. they are not isolated to 'conservative'works but do take on cultural considerations such as how much of academia has been dominated by western male thought. much of the academic left detest deconstructionalists such as jacque derrida's works. they even often challenged derrida's works as academic discourse. political dissidents such as noam chomsky have no high regard for deconstructionalism because the aforementioned schools of thought question the reality of structures, or at the very least, where they stand in a hierarchical sense.

it is stark hyperbole to purport that these schools of thought are dominant modes of thought today. the apogee for this movement was in the 1960's. of course, they still have a place in academics and are still taught but nowhere near to the extent of indoctrination the OP seems to suggest. obama is much more of a disciple of friedman's chicago school than he is of umberto eco or roland barthes. that's not even close.

Ain't nuthin' going to dissuade the rabid, foaming at the mouth fundamentalists and rightwing whackadoos who view Obama as nothing short of the anti-Christ, often quite literally.

I really worry what will happen to this crowd when they stop being able to put Republicans in the White House because they have on enough people who finally have had enough of their insanity.

It would not surprise me that they try waging a "holy war". Remember, many of hte people who think like the OP really do think the End Times are upon us and that Satan is marching to win Armageddon. Once you, again literally, demonize the groups you fear/hate, it becomes a lot easier to rationalize violence.

[rjv]

the OP is a contributor to the site "patriot update" (not as in the latest tom brady injury update). they put out such similar nonsense as this: http://patriotupdate.com/articles/de...ly-in-america/

just the recycled nonsense made popular by the likes of d'souza and william bennett; inherently racist arguments purporting to strive for the eradication of racism and resuscitation of the 1950's american utopia (which was all along a camouflaged dystopia)

[Clipper Nation]

Speaking of revisionism, remember how giddy you were when the media thought the ricin guy was a Democrat and then how quickly you tried to change the subject to Benghazi when it turned out Faux News was wrong?

[ElNono]

I don't know a politician that's not a historical revisionist...

D'Souza goes to even greater stupidity though, with his attempts at futurology and mind reading...

[Winehole23]

soi disant free thinkers of the right are only half right; the endumbening has occurred over a century or so and was a feature of the design.

the somewhat anachronistic reference to cultural marxism or the various academic legacies of the spirit of 1968, is a sort of Shibboleth. critical theory conceived of as socially pre-approved state programming, as the OP does, subs utes a nightmare related to the recent past for a description of the present. it's goofy as , but it might be a reliable tribal marker. keeping the spirit of of the kulturkampf alive and all that.

that stuff about historical revisionism is likewise a dog whistle. all it means is anyone's opinion you don't like, and is mostly a prelude to heroic glibness.

[BobaFett1]

Speaking of revisionism, remember how giddy you were when the media thought the ricin guy was a Democrat and then how quickly you tried to change the subject to Benghazi when it turned out Faux News was wrong?

No never changed story. I hope they punish sob who sent that letter. Was not giddy. I moved on but Clipper Nation your more stuck on the story than Collins likes it up the ass.

[Nbadan]

Historical revisionism!?!



Like justifying torture? murder? imperialism? Is that historical revisionism?

[Nbadan]

Because Washington owned slaves liberals discount everything else he did—little things like leading a ragtag Army to victory over the mighty British in our War of Independence, turning down the opportunity to be America’s first king and instead serving as our first president, and quietly holding the Cons utional Convention together so that the most famous government do ent in the history of the world could be completed and approved.

[Wild Cobra]

It makes up about what Obama said/thinks, and what the "left" says/thinks, and then proceeds to counter that fake made up position, in a fake outrage bull kind of way that passes for "facts" from a lot of conservatives.

I see...

It acts like you do...

[RandomGuy]

I see...

It acts like you do...

How so? Elaborate.

[TeyshaBlue]

post-structuralism and deconstructionalism deal with the "text within the text" of language and so they 'deconstruct' literature, history, and language so to speak. they are not isolated to 'conservative'works but do take on cultural considerations such as how much of academia has been dominated by western male thought. much of the academic left detest deconstructionalists such as jacque derrida's works. they even often challenged derrida's works as academic discourse. political dissidents such as noam chomsky have no high regard for deconstructionalism because the aforementioned schools of thought question the reality of structures, or at the very least, where they stand in a hierarchical sense.

it is stark hyperbole to purport that these schools of thought are dominant modes of thought today. the apogee for this movement was in the 1960's. of course, they still have a place in academics and are still taught but nowhere near to the extent of indoctrination the OP seems to suggest. obama is much more of a disciple of friedman's chicago school than he is of umberto eco or roland barthes. that's not even close.

rjv with the goods.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

goods or no the piece still encourages the "derp white man derp America yeah derp kenyan derp need a revolution derp JESUS!! derp" anti-intellectual type.