Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Leftist Ax?

In response to Leftist Ax? posted by pink101:

The "leftist axe" wasn't directed at you, since I was referring to historians. Thus, what I'm saying is that most historians consider GW to be indispensable to the USA -- except those who have a "leftist axe" (Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky - more a political scientist and philosopher, I suppose, than historian - but he fits here).

If you start to review GW's life and all that he did, it's astonishing the number of contributions he made to the United States - and, in GW's case, these weren't just contributions that made America better (such as is the case with Franklin Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, etc.). No, in GW's case, the contributions made America POSSIBLE.

» pink101 - Leftist Ax?

In response to Leftist Ax? posted by BrianTubbs:
.
"... in GW's case, the contributions made America POSSIBLE."
.
Name just a few for the general readers.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Revisionism

.
I guess I'm a little confused about the controversy and I think using George Washington as an example obfuscates the issue.
.
How does it play in to the removal of persons like Stephen Collins Foster and his music from history? This might be a more meaningful area of interest for me as I grew up in a society in which his music was revered.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - GW examples

In response to Leftist Ax? posted by pink101:

I hardly know where to begin. Here are just a few:

*Had GW not attacked Trenton (and won) in December 1776 (a decision he alone made), the American Revolution would have pretty well been over. Morale was low. Defeatism was rampant. The army was literally disintegrating. People by the hundreds were re-swearing their allegiance to King George. But with GW's victory at Trenton (and another at Princeton days later), the entire spirit in the colonies changed. Now, victory seemed possible. It was nothing short of a sea change.

*GW's stamina, skills at persuasion, persistence, and courage were all on display THROUGHOUT the war (including and esp in December 1776) in keeping the army together. (In Dec 1776, he secured a loan from a friend - and with that money, offered a bonus to the soldiers who reenlisted past their expirations in order to keep the army in the field. Had he not done this, the Continental Army he commanded would have all but ceased to exist on January 1, 1777. This is however just ONE of several examples in which he kept the army together and in the field).

*GW was the father of America's spy program, putting together vast networks of spies and agents who sowed confusion in the enemy and gathered critical information -- to keep the war going. Nathan Hale was one of GW's spies.

*GW lost more battles than he won, but refused to quit. His army (and many Americans generally) followed his personal example and leadership in this.

*GW refused to be king or dictator at war's end.

*GW single-handedly (read that again -- SINGLE HANDEDLY) headed off a military coup at Newburgh, NJ in 1782. Had he not done so, the Continental Army would've seized control of the Congress and force the states to pay monies owed the army. This would've resulted in a military dictatorship, civil war, renewed attacks from Britain after Yorktown, or all three. GW saved the day. For this ALONE, he is indispensable to the very existence of the USA.

I could go on, Pink. I'm only scratching the surface. I haven't even gotten into his presence at the Constitutional Convention (historians agree that if GW had refused to be a part of the Const Convention, the states NEVER would've ratified the Constitution) or his presidency.

The FACT remains....

No George Washington = No USA.

» Brian Tubbs - Overall issue

In response to Revisionism posted by pink101:

I'm citing GW, because he is the BEST example to prove my overall point. And what IS that point?

It is NOT wrong - in fact, it is entirely reasonable - to focus on "great men" in history. Historians like Nash and Zinn believe it is immoral to do so. They feel that we should focus on the masses - and, in their minds, that almost always means the oppressed or disadvantaged minority groups within the so-called "masses." They say that these folks represent the most important currents of history. I DISAGREE!

First of all, people are people. A multimillionaire is a person just like a poor, illiterate woman who can't feed her children. They are both people - and both are equal in the eyes of God.

BUT...when it comes to history....

We must understand that some people rise above the crowd and make significant impacts on society and culture.

George Washington made a greater and more decisive impact on US history than any other general in US history, any other President (incl, in my view, Lincoln - but some historians will disagree with me on that one), and any common foot soldier. Does this discredit foot soldiers? No, it merely states the OBVIOUS.

Stephen Collins Foster made a greater impact on American culture and music than I did - even though I was financially struggling middle-class student who played clarinet in high school because it was the only instrument I could afford! My sob story (and I'm really not that broken up about it - but if I listened to liberals long enough, I could convince myself to be so) does NOT change the fact the Foster was a great musician - and I'm not. That Foster warrants space in the history books, and I do not!

There is a reason why history tends to focus on extraordinary individuals ('great men') as opposed to the ordinary, common masses. And that is because the extraordinary folks were themselves ordinary people who ROSE ABOVE their circumstances to make an imprint in history. We SHOULD recognize and highlight that fact - and not be ashamed of it.

People should not be made to feel guilty because they become rich or influential - or because they warrant space in a history book.

Bottom line...I support the traditional approach to reading and studying history.

» pink101 - Overall issue

In response to Overall issue posted by BrianTubbs:
.
t is NOT wrong - in fact, it is entirely reasonable - to focus on "great men" in history.
.
I don.t think I have a problem with that. And I don't think anyone does.
.
I don't see "focus" as being a part of the problem of the controversy. I have read Zinn's work on "people's" history. In reading it, I see that it brings up problems for the religious and neoconservatives who, it seems, have now hijacked the Republican Party. And the problems aren't so much about not focusing in on great men as they are on some aspects that may be a little difficult to face.
.
Fact is, I don't know anyone who thinks George Washington should be discounted. Nor do I know anyone who thinks he should be apotheocized. George Washington was a man of the hour who was at the right place at the right time. If he had never been born, we would have an America and,who knows, it might have been an even better one. No one is indespensible.
.
We live in times when the imperative is that we take all people into consideration. Elitism--it seems to me--should have no place of respect in our democracy. To disregard the grunts is immoral. IMO.
.
BTW, Stephen Foster helps us understand a time in history that the elitists--again it seems to me--want to forget. Foster was a man who had his focus on an aspect of society that is of great importance for our democracy. His work has a great deal to say about the hypocricy of the South and its brand of Christianity. Like it or not. That is my opinion.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - I disagree

In response to Overall issue posted by pink101:

But before I get to the disagreement, let me say where I agree with you. :-) And that is with respect to those aspects of history that are less favorable to certain groups in society. I think we should cover all of history - good, bad, and ugly. On that, we agree. I just want to make sure that these aspects are covered FAIRLY - and not with some motive to grind an axe.

On your point that no one is indispensable, I STRONGLY disagree. First, I disagree in the sense that I consider EVERYONE to be indispensable in terms of God's overall plan. But even when focusing/discussing history in particular, I still disagree with you.

All you are doing is conjuring up some hypothetical speculations that others would be around to step into a gap. That may or may not be true. We can only speculate. We have to deal with what we have, though. And what we had in the RevWar was George Washington-- who was indispensable.

» pink101 - I disagree

In response to I disagree posted by BrianTubbs:
.
"And what we had in the RevWar was George Washington-- who was indispensable."
.
I guess we all know that you come from Virginia.
.
Close to Mount Vernon were you?
.
You can pound on that one until the cows come home, Brian. I see that your will is that he was indispensable. I have an idea that he would be the first to deny that. However, he was a towering figure of a man and he stood head and shoulders above his countrymen for whom he was first. Let's see, what was the population in those days? 16,000,000?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - GW

In response to I disagree posted by pink101:

I am a Virginian. Yessiree! :-) Lived fairly close to Mount Vernon. Visited my wife's parents in McLean over Christmas - and did take a pilgrimmage to Mount Vernon. :-) Had to see the new visitor and education center. Top notch!

» Brian Tubbs - Approaching History

In response to I disagree posted by pink101:

I don't subscribe to the twisted subjectivity of postmodernism, where reality and truth are inherently and consistently denied. Were I not a Christian, I would be a 100% full-fledged MODERNIST. I intellectually RESPECT modernists. At least they accept the notions of FACT and TRUTH and REALITY. I am comfortable in their worldview, even though I don't fully agree with it. The difference between a modernist and myself is that I've taken a step of faith into Christianity.

It is possible that part of the reason for our disagreement is that you're coming from a more postmodern (perhaps even existential) perspective in this discussion. That being the case, we will probably have to agree to disagree.

Nevertheless, if you'll indulge me...

I look at history from the perspective of causality. Cause and effect is a dynamic we see over and over again. I also see history for what it is - namely there were certain people who lived and certain events that happened. While I consider "what-if" to be a great approach in deepening one's understanding of history, I do NOT take it so far as to deal exclusively in speculation. Example....

The way history SHOULD be taught:

The combined Union victories at Vicksburg in the West and Gettysburg in the East formed the decisive turning point of the American Civil War.

The WRONG way to teach history:

Were it not for the Union victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, other battles would have been fought - and would probably have been won by the North - and the Civil War may very well have been won by the North anyway. But even if not, it's possible that the USA would have been better off. Of course, there's always.....yadda, yadda, yadda.

You are moving away from history and into philosophy (and that's probably an insult to philosophy).

So...let's deal with the cards we were dealt!!!!!! (sorry for the exclamation marks, I mean no disrespect - but this is a MAJORLY IMPORTANT point!) We must teach history according to what actually happened - and who actually lived.

While it may be appropriate to deviate SOME in order to deepen our understanding and appreciation for things, we mustn't deviate too far.

WITH ALL THE ABOVE IN MIND....it's clear, Pink, that some people were indispensable to things turning out the way that they did. That's indisputable, and I don't see how you can argue otherwise - other than to create your own reality and framework, something postmodernists unfortunately all too often do.