On a related topic, my 8-year-old son in 3rd grade government elementary school received his year-end project assignment — an oral/written report on an “American hero who helped advance freedom.” From a list of acceptable candidates, who was he assigned as his subject? None other than Woodrow Wilson!!!
I send my kids to government school because it’s all I can afford. It’s a decent school district and the kids learn reading and math rather well. The only time there’s trouble for me is when they teach history, especially to such young children. It’s state religion in sheep’s clothing. I must object, especially in such an outrageous example as Woodrow Wilson being a “hero promoting freedom.”
I met with his teacher and explained my conscientious objection. She graciously agreed to let us select a more appropriate subject. I also offered to let my son do a report on Wilson that demonstrated his villainy, but she nixed that immediately, of course. Can’t have the truth being taught in State history class!
You won’t believe this (/sarcasm) but Jefferson and Lincoln were also on the list. This is a State of California approved list.
But seriously, I was completely unprepared for the last name on the list — Anne Hutchinson!!!!
I almost lost consciousness. I told the teacher that Anne would do! She replied, “Well, Bret would have to wear a dress.” Part of the report is presenting in costume. Then she said, “And we don’t assign Hutchinson.” No shit, lady!!!
That was one of the most bizarre moments of my life — a State school putting an anarchist on a list of “freedom heroes.” I’ve seen it all.
Sorry to bore you, thought it was an amusing anecdote and marginally topical.
]]>I wouldn’t use autistic-type
as a term of criticism. I think it’s unfair to people labeled with so-called autism spectrum disorders
to compare them to the worst examples of the LRC attack-dog mode of discourse.
Otherwise, I agree.
Jimi G,
If DiLorenzo helped steer you towards the truth in spite of himself, then I suppose one can say that his work has had some accidental good effects. But I really can’t describe what he offers as much needed balance
(any more than I think purveyors of embarrassing Lincoln hagiography provide much needed balance
to DiLorenzo and other neo-Confederates). DiLorenzo’s work is so full of misrepresentations, irrelevant gossip, Lost Cause nostalgia and euphemistic dishonesty that, whatever good things it may effect by accident, it’s worth less than nothing to the cause of honest and principled anti-statist revisionism on the Civil War. From the standpoint of intellectual clarity it distracts from the real issues by lingering over mythology and nonsense, and from the standpoint of intellectual acceptance it serves to discredit good people doing serious work.
For a much more serious and valuable approach to the issues that DiLorenzo writes on, I would suggest Jeffrey Rogers Hummell’s excellent work, especially Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men.
]]>I thought it would be fair to post the link.
JOR, libertarianism is a big tent — there’s room for autistic libertarians too!
But to give credit where it’s due, DiLorenzo did contribute to opening my eyes to the Lincoln cult and he adds much needed balance to what would otherwise be the universal worship of Lincoln the God.
]]>Anyway, yeah, DiLorenzo’s polemical style is something I could never stand. There are plenty of reasons for at least libertarians to despise Lincoln without distorting and lying to try and make him out to be the worst dictator ever. That reminds me of the habit the neocons have of comparing every Bad Guy of the Week to Hitler, and of replying to criticism of US policy with, “Well if you think we’re bad, you should move to Cuba/Iran/North Korea!” as if anyone marginally less murderous and tyrannical than Kimmie must be an okay guy.
]]>While Nifong is a most contemptible human being, I have no sympathy for those who advocate aggression against any human.
I thought everyone should know this.
]]>