Reflections From a Murky Pond

As The Commercial Appeal reports it, some two dozen or so Tennessee TEA Party supporters want the state’s history curriculum changed.  Specifically, they want slavery and issues with the Native American tribes downplayed as compared to how they’re handled currently.

No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.

~*~

The thing we need to focus on about the founders is that, given the social structure of their time, they were revolutionaries who brought liberty into a world where it hadn’t existed, to everybody — not all equally instantly — and it was their progress that we need to look at.

As one would expect, the MSM has made a lot of this request to the Tennessee legislature and, as one would also expect, the Liberals and their minority tenants are frothing at the mouth over it.

But are the requests of these TEA Partiers requests for historical revisionism or merely for a restoration of the curriculum as it was before the oikophobic Liberals corrupted the school systems with their own pernicious form of anti-American revisionism?

I know what the history curriculum was when I was in school and I know it didn’t hide the fact that the Founding fathers were slaveholders. It also didn’t make that, or any other societal flaw, the focus of the classes either.

That’s not, however, how history is taught in most states these days. The Liberals got control over the curriculum years ago and shifted it to focus on the negatives instead of the achievements of Americans. I can’t say for sure though that this is case in Tennessee or, if it is, how egregious the current curriculum is.

Restoration or revision? Frankly, I don’t know. Either seems possible.

Related Reading:

Let us for the nonce consider matters as they currently stand in America as if the fantasies of the Liberals and their minority tenants were true. Let us pretend that they’re right and that American society and culture is endemically and inherently racist – vilely and perniciously so.

If Americans are so racist, wasn’t it the nadir of irresponsibility to install a Black man as POTUS during the current crisis-ridden times facing America and the world?

Think about that objectively for a moment. If Americans are so racist and hold such fear, loathing, and hatred for minorities that they were going to attack Obama no matter what he did or said just because he’s Black, how irresponsible or, alternatively, how much hatred for America the Liberals and their minority tenants must one have to willfully saddle America with him as POTUS in these times?

Related Reading:

South Carolina has problem. Eric Holder’s DoJ, through its Civil Rights division, announced that it would block a new South Carolina law that required voters to show a photo ID when casting a vote.

In a letter to South Carolina’s government, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez called the state law—which would require voters to present one of five forms of photo ID at the polls—a violation of Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Overall, he noted, 8.4% of the state’s registered white voters lack photo ID, compared to 10% of nonwhite voters.

Identifying SC’s problem is quite easy. It’s not the law and it’s not the ID requirements. It’s Obama’s boy, Eric Holder’s racism and the Obama Regime’s desperate attempt to change South Carolina’s active electorate into something they perceive as more favorable to Obama and his Liberals.

South Carolina’s Problem Is Holder

8.4% of SC’s White voters vs. 10% of non-White voters lack any of the forms of ID accepted under the law, one of which is provided free of charge – not exactly a gaping chasm, even by the false standards of disproportional effect. Yet Eric Holder and his cronies think it’s worthy of their attack.

Read the rest of this entry »

Related Reading: