"On the Understanding and the Teaching of History..." Topic

I thought this article to be worthy of discussion:

link

Then why didn't you start the discussion?

Unh, looks like white racists live in terror that what they'd like to do to minorities might get done to them; projection on a massive scale. It looks like these bills are willing to violate 1st Amendment principles to achieve this censorship. It's a bad strategy because there's no better way to get a child to read something than for them to hear it is banned.

Additionally, this bit that it is "indoctrination and not education" seems to reveal that the anti-CRT and anti-1619 think all education is indoctrination. Otherwise, why would they fear a variety of viewpoints? Either they dont believe there is any such thing as the truth or they dont have a lot of faith in American students' and their ability to reason their way to it.

Don't fear a variety of viewpoints, if a variety of viewpoints are allowed. Typically leftists do NOT like a variety of viewpoints, as you have demonstrated. You immediately opened up with the accusation of "white racists" which shuts down any legitimate discussion, because if you disagree with CRT and the 1619 project you are a "white racist." In reality, from a historical perspective CRT and 1619 are flawed because they are journalistic and leftist philosophical perspectives. But as long as both sides point to the other side's extremist views, and present hate-based perspectives, especially based on fear, we all suffer.

Don't fear a variety of viewpoints, if a variety of viewpoints are allowed. Typically leftists do NOT like a variety of viewpoints,

I dont see anyone trying to restrict speech on the so-called left. Did you read the article. Also, these populists admit they haven't read either CRT or 1619 project materials.

Typically leftists do NOT like a variety of viewpoints, as you have demonstrated.

Dude, I ain't a leftist. I ain't no fascist either, nah mean?

You immediately opened up with the accusation of "white racists" which shuts down any legitimate discussion, because if you disagree with CRT and the 1619 project you are a "white racist."

Umm,I dont think so; not if you merely disagree with it.

But if you are passing legislation to ban viewpoints that you haven't read based solely on fear it makes white people look bad when all it actually does is ask for more understanding and challenges some propaganda about the nation;s history…then, yeah, you might be a racist afraid of some sort of minority backlash.

You do know the differences between thought, speech and action?

+1 Au pas!

Ditto

This conversation has nothing to do with miniature wargaming. That being said, CRT in and of itself is racist. You cannot fight racism with racism.

Yes, the white fragility argument. So clever. Perhaps we can argue that folks against CRT have small genitals like Hitler. That would be really clever.

Joe Collins

Poorly written article. The author sets up a false straw man and knocks it down. The author of the 1619 project admitted she was writing propaganda, not history. It was eviscerated by actual historians and, while some things were changed, the New York Times never issued any corrections.

@cavcrazy

That being said, CRT in and of itself is racist.

Aside from discussing race, how is CRT racist?

You cannot fight racism with racism.

I would love to hear you explain this motto. And, as a necessary follow up, explain how exactly racism is to be combatted?

Yes, the white fragility argument. So clever.

@lkmjbc3

It's not white fragility, it's "racist" fragility. Kindly do not lump me with the racists; as far as I've seen, whites can contemplate any theory and come up with robust solutions without crumbling.

Perhaps we can argue that folks against CRT have small genitals like Hitler.

It isn't their genitals that are small.

That would be really clever.

Is there something wrong with being clever?

It would be nice to believe that the candidate advocates the banning of the 1619 Project based on its historical flaws rather than its focus. Nice, but also unrealistic.

The history of Virginia that I was taught in elementary school was very much from the viewpoint of white English Protestants who came ashore at Jamestown and then spread to dominate the state. The primary virtue of this approach wasn't its accuracy or even its simplicity. It was that the Virginia elite could always be presented as the good guys. Which sometimes they were not.

I don't believe that any idea, especially in history, cannot be discussed in the classroom. That's called academic freedom.

Banning material merely because it is disagreed with, for whatever reason, is nothing but censorship.

@ Au Pas, CRT is a theory that in itself claims that this entire country was founded on racism and that the entire idea of this country as a whole is racist. It is not. We are the only country in history to engage in a civil war to end slavery. There is racism everywhere, but in terms of an entire country being "racist" we are not a racist country.
As for my comment, "You can't fight racism with racism." ? That comment stands on its own. Back to my original question, What does this have to do with miniature wargaming ?

Poorly written article. The author sets up a false straw man and knocks it down.

We may need to sit down and have a discussion about what strawmen actually are because it seems the concept is confused here.

The article, while no work of art, discusses how the CRT is used as a "Strawman" (If you like) to overreact, advance proactive legislation banning it in schools where it is often not taught, police the thoughts of teachers and generally create a bogeyman to drive racist parents to come vote for them. Frankly, the rush to trample the 1st Amendment is appallingly fascist and perhaps also leftist at the same time; sort of a Lefty-McFascist panic. It is certainly not based on ever having read CRT.

Further, this entire impetus of banning CRT may rely on the racists never having read about CRT but fearing that it is some sort of "Fear of a Black Planet" reverse-racism; which CRT certainly is not. I personally would never accept a doctrine that cast white people as inherently bad. I am open to allowing African-Americans to partake in the American dream which includes recognition for their contributions and remaining sensitive that they are, unfairly, not a popular community. Can we not all hold more than one thought at the same time?

The author of the 1619 project admitted she was writing propaganda

Where did she admit this?

, not history.

Well she is a journalist but journalists can and do write history. Just ask Rick Atkinson. In any case, she is a professor now at Howard University. She just rejected tenure at UNC after having been offered a non-tenured position due to the intervention of a manipulative university donor.

Additionally, please give us your control language on who is an historian, who gets to write history, what their credentials have to be and what history has to contain? Is there only one accepted approach or viewpoint on history? Are historians never supposed to have theories, make arguments, draw conclusions and advance motives that may never have hitherto been considered?

It was eviscerated by actual historians and, while some things were changed, the New York Times never issued any corrections.

Again, this legitimacy business. I hope were not going to be discussing if she was really born here. The 1619 project wasn't "eviscerated by actual historians", rather, they criticized a few factoids and viewpoints they didn't like. However, almost none of them has ever written books on African Americans in history. Thus their message was, we don't write about it, no one else should write about it and if they do it had better meet our standards. I cant imagine a more small-hearted, pedantic panic over what was supposed to be a conversation starter about African-American contributions to the USA.

Certainly the controversy it has started is good both to challenge what could be overlooked and false and reaffirm what we all have gotten right?

In any case, some of the 1619 criticisms themselves have been found to be false or picayune to the point where one wonders what their initial motives for criticism actually were.

The NYT never issued any corrections?

link

link

Maybe you've never read the 1619 project and maybe you're getting things from 2nd hand sources but please, please when trying to be immaculate about "facts", let's not leave out some of the more salient ones. Let's try and be fair minded here.

The only bit that both the NYT and the author seems to have altered is the idea that the AWI was fought primarily to preserve slavery. That was her viewpoint and perhaps an African-American viewpoint. Preserving slavery certainly may not have been the primary impetus but it could very well have been more than the nothing burger it has previously been treated as. I suspect many of her critics pretended that her hyperbole was more important than it was because they tacitly disliked the threat they felt by the entire series of articles and did not want to admit it. Besides, nothing is worthwhile if it isn't criticized, especially by the historical "gods".

I think the fact that the author has shaken us out of bourgeois complacency over the matter is to be praised for two reasons. First, if it is a false notion, we will have explored it and settled it, thus reaffirming the historical record. If it isn't completely true, we can now include incidences where it very well might have had shades of truth. In both cases, she is to be praised and not condemned. History should be constantly challenged and checked; don't you think?

We do remember the Smithsonian's "whiteness"/"white culture" poster. If you don't, do a bing image search. Yes, THAT is racism.

You mean this?

link

What do you think is racist, the ideas in the text or that it is tied to whites?

Yes, thank you, I do mean that. It is racist to suggest that personal responsibility is a "white" thing. A large black middle class that exhibits those very qualities would surely agree.

And in any case, the cultural lines are more between rich and middle class and the poor, of any color. Each of those three groups has different sets of attitudes about all sorts of things. On food, for example, the poor judge on quantity, the middle class on quality, and the rich on presentation. Our church has (pre-COVID and returning soon) regular evening dinners with a mix of members and guests, white and black, from upper middle class to homeless. The members are MOSTLY white though we have a black deacon; the poor are about evenly divided black and white. The differences in attitudes and assumptions, about food and time and noise and conversation, are very noticeable, but it is social class and income level, not race. Mostly.

>Additionally, this bit that it is "indoctrination and not education" seems to reveal that the anti-CRT and anti-1619 think all education is indoctrination.

Nobody fears new ideas--but 1619 claptrap is not "an idea," but the falsification of history. CRT is indoctrination and is mind numbing nonsense. I've seen this stuff creeping into higher ed for decades, up through my MA and PhD. Now they're trying to impose it on public ed. And IMPOSE is the word. This has NOTHING to do with "different viewpoints."

Any number of respectable historians on the left and right have justly derided 1619 as garbage.

link

People will ignore this politicized garbage at their peril.

Yes, thank you, I do mean that. It is racist to suggest that personal responsibility is a "white" thing. A large black middle class that exhibits those very qualities would surely agree.

I think I see your point but I believe the poster was created to demonstrate that whites judge nonwhites unfairly because they often display a lack of those qualities and, further, that the lack of those qualities are often assigned to people of color whether or not they possess or do not possess those qualities and that, further these qualities are often automatically assigned to white people who do not possess said qualities. Thus, it could be said that what the poster drives at is not so much that people of color do not possess these qualities but that white people will often be viewed as virtuous and people of color less virtuous whether or not they deserve it.

However I acknowledge that the poster has an offensive aspect to it, is disturbing and that the entire subject is complex. Further, I agree that our national problems are more class based than race based but that doesn't mean there isnt a race based problem.

I am pretty sure we can solve these problems with repeated posts by anonymous people on this hobby page – a site which used to be dedicated to miniatures and gaming but now is working to solve social and cultural problems.

Next, that sticky Middle East situation.

LOL !!
And they come on in the same old style and in the same old way -- as the banners unfurl revealing so much that is unintended to be obvious.

Russ Dunaway

I am pretty sure we can solve these problems with repeated posts by anonymous people on this hobby page – a site which used to be dedicated to miniatures and gaming but now is working to solve social and cultural problems.

I doubt it, you can't solve something until everyone agrees a problem exists. Perhaps, rather than overly concerning yourself with the subject matter, you could see this an an opportunity to hone one's discussion, analytical, viewpoint awareness, reading comprehension, research skills, inclusion, fairness skills, writing skills which could be useful to create clearer rules, more balanced scenarios and avoid contextual blind areas which can so often lead to misunderstandings and dysfunction in the hobby.

Next, that sticky Middle East situation

That gets discussed often. Do you burst in on those conversations and object to them as well?

@ Au Pas, CRT is a theory that in itself claims that this entire country was founded on racism and that the entire idea of this country as a whole is racist. It is not.

Well. some people disagree with you. Deal with it.

We are the only country in history to engage in a civil war to end slavery.

Is this true? Seems quite a few think it was fought to end slavery…or even to preserve it.

There is racism everywhere, but in terms of an entire country being "racist" we are not a racist country.

Well, CRT isnt a manifesto, and it doesn't say this; we're twisting things. Read up on it. I'm glad you realize there is racism everywhere, primarily in the household of children who learn it before they hit school.

To discuss race is by definition racism and uncomfortable but to gloss over it is to remain in a dream of one's liking.

As for my comment, "You can't fight racism with racism." ? That comment stands on its own.

Does it? What exactly does one fight racism with?

Back to my original question, What does this have to do with miniature wargaming ?

Maybe someone will produce more miniatures of color to make regiments up with or salt (no pun intended)into existing white units? Or maybe game a counterfactual, slave uprising? How about a modern day politician and his family that need to be rescued by a finely trained militia group from bloodthirsty CRT authors? The possibilities boggle the imagination.

Does the relationship to wargaming have to be a universal standard or is there a percentage that makes it includable? Further, do you protest against all discussions that aren't directly 'bout wargaming or just the ones that make you uncomfortable?

Okay, so you're the guy who likes to stir the pot. Discussing race, politics, or anything you want to is fine, but this is "The miniatures page". I like to come to this page much like most people, to discuss gaming, see what others are painting, discuss rules, look at new figures, and generally escape from the muck of the day. I'm a guy who plays with, paints, and enjoys toy soldiers. That's why I come here. If the page was called ,"The miniatures page, and the discussions of politics and all the other crap that goes on in the world", I wouldn't be here, because as I have asked before, "What does this conversation have to do with miniature gaming?"

Okay, so you're the guy who likes to stir the pot.

Me? I am no such thing sir. I am a mere thinker of thoughts.

…but this is "The miniatures page". I like to come to this page much like most people, to discuss gaming, see what others are painting, discuss rules, look at new figures, and generally escape from the muck of the day.

I sympathize but this is a matter you need to bring up with our Editor and not chase me around like the wild goose of proverb.

because as I have asked before, "What does this conversation have to do with miniature gaming?"

It's a matter of how abstract your thinking is. I have no desire to insult you but, I have given examples and I can see that this aspect doesn't interest you. I respect that.

The idea of the hobby as an oasis is no less attractive to myself. However, if these topics annoy you, perhaps you can derive solace if, from time to time, you can remind yourself that providence has afforded us not only both the means and social stability to enjoy our hobby but also remember that not everyone has access to a pursuit free from stress. Bear that in mind, and it should render the hobby's comforts that much more valuable for all of us.

I believe this is a most Christian virtue; perhaps doc mcb has a better passage from scripture?

He is Cain.

We are the only country in history to engage in a civil war to end slavery.

I agree, most countries were able to end slavery peacefully. The United States had to end slavery by having a calamitous Civil War. That is not a good thing.

link

The Weak and the Strong -- Paul, Romans 14

14 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person's faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

Charge, are you familiar with the problem of black kids doing more poorly in school than they are capable of, because they do not want to be, or to be thought by others to be, "acting white"? I assure you it is a real thing. That kind of self-sabatoge is similar, in my view, to the Smithsonian poster.

In the first of two private schools in which I taught, there were initially (in the 80's) only a few black kids, always excellent athletes, and they got a pass from their black friends for playing ball at a white school; that was an accepted role. But as the black enrollment increased, with children of black doctors and lawyers and such who could afford better than the public school they were assigned to, it was a real issue; I had several parent conferences in which THEY brought it up as a factor in how their kids were doing (under-achieving).

Charge, are you familiar with the problem of black kids doing more poorly in school than they are capable of, because they do not want to be, or to be thought by others to be, "acting white"? I assure you it is a real thing. That kind of self-sabatoge is similar, in my view, to the Smithsonian poster.

There is a lot of pathology in some areas of the black community where children have given up hope because they've bought into the lie that they're 2nd rate. However, the community isnt a monolith. Further, a large enough body of African-Americans are aggravated by being picked on for what's "wrong" with them, when what's wrong with them is often connected to having been shunned and degraded for so very long. The less discriminatory pressure the African-American community receives, the more it will shed its deviance. It might take a while and there will be all sorts of stories about how it isn't working but after many hundreds of years, it'll take a few to unwind itself.

I said the poster was unnecessary. I think I know what they wanted to show but it was too vague. Is this the big issue? One bad advertisement trying to call attention to baseline racism?

Also, just because something doesn't work, doesn't mean something doesn't have to be corrected. The status quo is unacceptable.

In the first of two private schools in which I taught, there were initially (in the 80's) only a few black kids, always excellent athletes, and they got a pass from their black friends for playing ball at a white school; that was an accepted role. But as the black enrollment increased, with children of black doctors and lawyers and such who could afford better than the public school they were assigned to, it was a real issue; I had several parent conferences in which THEY brought it up as a factor in how their kids were doing (under-achieving).

Is this an argument for increased integration?

I think integration is fine, but the wider the spread of ability and motivation in a class, the harder it is to teach. And I think you are missing the point of the "acting white" problem.

Here's an analogy. In urban poor culture, if someone wins the lottery or otherwise gets a winfall (which can happen with disability payments; the first one can be many thousands of dollars because they calculate from the application date, but it may take a year or more to get approved) the person receiving the money is EXPECTED to share with family and neighbors, generously, until it is all gone and everyone is once again as poor as before. The concept of capital, or savings againmst an emergency, is lacking. I have seen this, directly, in several cases.

It is similar, sometimes, with school kids; excelling at sports, or popular entertainment, is desired but excelling at an academic pursuit is disdained; it makes you stand out from your friends in ways that THEY will not approve of.

Whatever the roots of this attitude, it is real. Of course it does not apply to everyone; some kids work hard and achieve. But there is a real tendency within the culture to pull down anyone rising out of it. If that is a WHITE attitude on my part, so be it; but the described behavior is tragically self-destructive.

It is similar, sometimes, with school kids; excelling at sports, or popular entertainment, is desired but excelling at an academic pursuit is disdained; it makes you stand out from your friends in ways that THEY will not approve of.

Whatever the roots of this attitude, it is real. Of course it does not apply to everyone; some kids work hard and achieve. But there is a real tendency within the culture to pull down anyone rising out of it. If that is a WHITE attitude on my part, so be it; but the described behavior is tragically self-destructive.

If this is the case, then it is a real problem. Sometimes, misery doesn't merely like company; it makes sure it has some.

"To discuss race is by definition racism"

Huh? That seems a bit…..silly. At best.

"What exactly does one fight racism with?"

Logic. Facts. And, if you're of a religious nature, God's Word.

Charge, yes, that is exactly right.

+1 cavcrazy

And to move to a more civil discussion, let's talk about the Alamo and the recent book "Forget The Alamo" which has all the usual suspects in Texas upset.

Well this all seems clear to me…not. After all this time CRT is now a handy negative campaign tool? Does anyone recall what it actually says, where it came from, why it matters?

I am more than ready to forget the Hollywood Alamo. What's the best history book on this subject? I don't know who wrote this new one, but is there a go to standard?

Actually, the latest is pretty good, "Forget The Alamo". It lays out the historical facts, backs them up with footnotes, quotes letters and orders of those who played a major part in the events leading up to the battle and afterwards, and presents a time line that details the promises made by US civilians to the Mexican government about slavery and religion, that moved to Texas and how they broke them. Good coverage of the actual events at the Alamo, using both US and Mexican oral histories recorded during and after the battle, plus lots of official and personal accounts of the Mexican officers and survivors that were there.

Book includes the history of the Alamo itself, what and who grew the myth and the attempts to whitewash certain facts and events. Phil Collins plays a part in the book (who knew he was/is the leading collector of real/maybe/fake Alamo items in the world apparently. Fascinating retelling of the events dealing with the latest attempts to build a world class museum there in the past few years and the opposition to including historical documents and such that badly tarnish the heart felt want to keep the "Hollywood myth" (even John Wayne gets air time in this recounting).

I highly recommend it.

link

Best book out there.

Who ever totally believes anything from history. Both the "losers, winners, rich, poor, etc" spin their tale?
Does anyone really believe that "millions" of Gauls actually showed up to battle Caesar?
Much of this stuff I keep reading as being somehow "whitewashed and covered up" I was aware of as a child?

Russ Dunaway

Yes, I agree with Russ. The Alamo story contains myth as well as history, and I have been aware of that distinction since at least 1960. The latest breathless "expose" is, for me, pretty ho hum.

I'm more excited about the new exhibit at the southwest corner where the 18 pounder was. Which I will see this fall when we are there.

Thanks to all for these useful comments. I never thought Fess Parker was Davy Crockett, nor did I believe that soldiers were like John Wayne, as I come from an extensive military family going back to WW1.

But I have always lived in FIW country, and have never read anything detailed and factual about the Alamo other than basic early Texas history. Just now I find myself wanting to know the real story.

Not much of a scenario for a wargame, I am guessing!

Hardin's book "Texian Iliad: A Military History of the Texas Revolution" is a good read that deals with the military aspects of the Texas Revolution.

link

Yes, Hardin is good.

Tortorella, it makes an awesome game.

link

These rules are for refighting the Alamo, primarily in 15mm scale using the Blue Moon Alamo and figure range, although they can be adapted to larger or smaller scales. Set-up is double-blind, with the Texans deploying within the defenses while the Mexicans go away and plan their assault. The game is fast and features volleys of dice. Players' perspective is that of the Mexican column or company commanders, and the Texan officers. The Mexicans will win the BATTLE, but the Texans can win the game based on how many casualties they inflict on the attackers. The Texan garrison can number 186 or 250, with a higher body count required to win in the second case. The back cover shows printable casualty markers for both sides. There are two hypothetical scenarios for added play value: "Fannin at the Alamo" increases the Texan force to 500+, while "Cos Defends the Alamo, 1835" puts the MEXICANS inside and the Texans attacking!

Yes, so I see! Clever sounding rules to make a competitive game of it.

I just happen to have some Blue Moon Napoleonic French for the Mexicans and some AWI frontier militia and rifles with round hats for the Texans. Thanks Doc, now to get reading for inspiration.

My family and I were in San Antonio two years ago and visited the Alamo. Great visit to a worthy battlefield-and some of the defenders of the position were Mexicans, which isn't usually touted, especially in Texas…🤦‍♂️

The role of Tejanoes in the war for texas independence is not exactly a secret. Both the Wayne film in 1960 and the far better 2004 one showed Tejanoes. I learned about Juan Seguin and Lorenzo de Zavala in 7th grade Texas history in 1959. So you are simply wrong that they are not "touted".

link

Two women -- de Zavala and Driscoll -- led the fight to preserve the Alamo but warred with each other on HOW the Alamo should be interpreted. Don't know if it is still there, but there used to be, in between the church and the long barracks, a little garden honoring them both, as the saviors of the Alamo. There's a plaque for each woman, and a huge cactus in between.

However, it was not Anglo versus Tejanoe: Driscoll was also a devout Roman Catholic and spoke fluent Spanish.

A LINE IN THE SAND has a good account of the dispute.