"Controversy at Museum of the American Revolution" Topic

How is ANY of this related to miniatures or wargaming?

Discussion of history is allowed here.

IMO

But I don't think this post has any connection to history, other than the location of a rally is at a museum related to history.

The museum is not being renamed. The museum is not being defaced. The museum is not being destroyed. The items in the museum are not being effected. After the rally it will still be the museum. As long as opposing groups don't appear and some violent confrontation occurs and something happens to damage the museum. Any of the above, other than the confrontation, would make the topic relatable to history.

This is just a post to rail against groups and people that some in TMP oppose and to try and use the "museum" to make it "historical".

Again if the museum was going to be defaced, destroyed, modified or any way permanently effected, the historic connection would be legitimate.

This is a rally at a privately owned location, NOT a public location. Disagree with them, don't go to them, don't contribute to them, call and complain to them. Those are options.

But in this case I don't see the historic connection that allows the post on TMP.
We know it does not have anything to do with miniatures, that point is not important in context.

But this is Bill's site and he thinks it has a historic connection, then it does.

IMO

But 35th, "history" is not the same as "the past." It is how we chose to remember the past and apply it today. By welcoming the Moms the museum is making a statement about the meaning of the Revolution -- which is its function. Some will inevitably disagree, which is fine; history is ALWAYS a disputable matter, and never more so than today. And of course disputes about the past always have political implications for today; that is what history IS, what it DOES.

So if this board is for the discussion of history, it will inevitably have political implications.

An analogy: there was a real king named MacBeth, but Shakespeare's tragic hero is not him. If one were to go to great lengths to "prove" the real guy was different than the one in the play, the answer would be "yeah, we know." But when our culture writes of MacBeth, we mean the one on stage. And though the play is fiction, it contains truths about ambition and temptation and how two people can talk each other into doing an evil that neither would have done alone. So is MACBETH "history"? Yes, it kind of is; "history is what the Present finds useful to remember about the Past."

This is NOT what most people understand "history" to mean. It is the case, however.

Doc, I do not see the historic connection in this specific case. If this had been a LBGQT or any group the SPLC agreed with, at a museum, i doubt any would have posted to TMP.

But again that is my opinion. You and Bill and others can disagree and believe it historic, that's fine. 🙂

Doc,

"An analogy: there was a real king named MacBeth, but Shakespeare's tragic hero is not him. If one were to go to great lengths to "prove" the real guy was different than the one in the play, the answer would be "yeah, we know." But when our culture writes of MacBeth, we mean the one on stage. And though the play is fiction, it contains truths about ambition and temptation and how two people can talk each other into doing an evil that neither would have done alone. So is MACBETH "history"? Yes, it kind of is; "history is what the Present finds useful to remember about the Past."

This is NOT what most people understand "history" to mean. It is the case, however."

In this case the connection becomes legit, as to the use of the historic character or the play are both "historic", so I agree. 🙂

But this is a building, not historic in itself. No different then the LBGTQ rally and meetings at the Brooklyn Museum (which is taxpayer and donations paid). The item's inside are historic in both cases, but they are not rallying using the objects, on the objects.

I Don't disagree with either group rallying, just don't see any connection to history for the TMP connection.

Again we can disagree. 😉

Agree with 35thOVI.

And since it, oddly, wasn't snipped, how about a couple of specific examples of this 'tyranny' doc.

The Brooklyn Museum is purely an Art Museum. And, as far as i know, the LGBTQ+ community speaks out to expand their rights, not abridge the speech and/or rights of others.

From an historical viewpoint, I believe it is somewhat historic that the museum got bamboozled into letting a group that doesn't read the books they want to ban and quotes Adolf Hitler have a political rally.

Part of the historical and Constitutional absurdity is that a group which basically violates intellectual and free speech values has to be allowed to speak even if they are advocating abridging the free speech of others. It aint easy being a democracy.

Further absurdity resides in the fact that the museum might've believed that the group calling itself Mom's for Liberty actually believed in the principles of liberty when in fact they believe in censorship. Perhaps sometimes censorship is appropriate but if there is no shame in it, why doesnt the group call itself Mom's for Censorship?

And, it does open up questions now about whether the museum has altered the nature of what it is and whether they will now have to let other groups rent out the venue to other groups for their own agenda driven presentations.

Seems like a lot worse damage than if the name of the museum had been changed or the walls spray painted.

And I agree about doc's history analogy, I like the George C. Scott Patton way better than the real one.

Silurian, sure, we have two sets of laws, one for those in power and the other for their opponents.

35th, surely you wouldn't say a church is just a building? Indeed, the building is the least important part of it. It is the people and their beliefs and activities. (A place CAN have intrinsic importance: Independence Hall does, and so does Little Round Top.) If the museum as an organization -- not just a building -- sees its role as including debate on fundamental values and principles underlying politics, those values and principles being traceable back to 1776, then it is doing history.

Charge, you have not proven your accusation of censorship. The issue is age-appropriate books in schools, and also who gets to say. Librarians decide constantly what books to include and which to cull or exclude from their collection. Is that "censorship"? Not when every such book is readily available to any adult who wants to purchase it from Amazon.

Doc, but in this case, the place is not impacted nor items in it. To be honest, the history of the place is not impacted. I can't even come at this from the taxpayers angle, as it's a private entity.

Baring a stated purpose of going in to desecrate the facility by vandalization, I don't see any damage or impact to history.

Let them meet. Since it's privately owned it's their choice.

As far as churches. They too, as long as those who own and belong to it, ok it, can do as they please. I believe that is a cause of the divide in the Methodist today. I'm sure it is much deeper.

There are certain groups I find repulsive on the lefts side, and disagree with vehemently. As long as they don't destroy or damage, they can "peacefully" rally as will.

So as I stated… see nothing historic on this one to justify a post.

Take care.

Cahrge, also, what does "expand their rights mean"?

Charge, you have not proven your accusation of censorship.

Did I need to accuse them of the obvious or prove it?

OK, someone said the ACLU advocated for the Nazi's right to march in Skokie. Let's take a look at the ACLU's website.

Here we go, their definition of Censorship:

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

link

The issue is age-appropriate books in schools, and also who gets to say.

Otherwise known as censorship.

It occurs to me that these Moms first failed to get their way with school boards and then, rather than take their "L", decided that it was because the woke or communist or whatever crowd had taken over so they had a right to organize in the name of decency. Doesnt that go against Mr Bunkermeister's assertion that the Majority should rule?

Librarians decide constantly what books to include and which to cull or exclude from their collection. Is that "censorship"?

It can be. But if it's a matter of space, then perhaps it is more benign. Also, unless I'm mistaken, librarians dont usually organize with other libraries to exclude books based on content and, additionally, if the book is asked for, they will get a book from another library for you; even if that individual librarian might consider the book inappropriate.

Not when every such book is readily available to any adult who wants to purchase it from Amazon.

Thus, if a government bans websites or books and tells you that they are still available somewhere, it isnt censorship? The Nazis burned books but they were still available in the UK, did they have a right to claim that they weren't banning books?

You dont condemn a Moms for Liberty spokesperson quoting Adolf Hitler? Can I take it that you think that this is no biggie?

Cahrge, also, what does "expand their rights mean"?

Attain their rights?

This is what you're worried about?

Let's just say they dont quote AH.

There's some irony here because Moms for Liberty claim they are trying to protect their children from being brainwashed by transgender folk while using a quote from a man who literally was brainwashing people's children.

So by the last definition, these people are all guilty of attempted censorship and You would gladly condemn them? APDC, by what you say, these people are guilty of attempting censorship of the views of others. They can try and candy coat it as "hate" and "misinformation" as they please, does not make it fact.

Just trying to see if your outrage goes both ways.

I disagree with those below, but if they would want to rally at the museum, let them.

Subject: LGBTQ Celebrities & Allies Call on Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and Twitter to Stop the Flow of Anti-Trans Hate & Malicious Disinformation About Trans Healthcare – GLAAD

link

Did the Moms quote Hitler approvingly? I'd have to know context.

And I do not accept the ACLU's definition of censorship.

And the ALA etc. HAVE indeed taken positions on books, to exclude. Librarians have professional associations, same as other proffesions, and those associations take positions on political issues including what collections should and should not include. Do some more research.

Just out of interest, how many on here have actually read this:
link
- the condensed version of the Moms for Liberty book list, illustrating why they wish for these books to be restricted amongst certain age groups?

The quote used in the newsletter was taken from a speech Hitler gave during a 1935 rally: "He alone, who OWNS the youth, GAINS the future."

Does that in any way endorse Hitler or National Socialism? One could make the same point from, e.g., the Jesuits, whose influence was based on schools, or indeed from Scripture: "Train up a child . . ." It happens to be true.

I'm sure the MOMs now do wish they had used a different quote from someone else to make the point. But I do not think the criticism directed at the MOMs for quoting Hitler is appropriate or made in good faith.

noggin, thanks for posting that. Charge, by all means explain to us why the books illustrated belong in school libraries. We'll wait.

Noggin. How dare you bring sanity into a rant!! 😂🤣

I will say, that when shown on TV, some of those illustrations had to be blacked out or fuzzed out, because they were not appropriate for TV, especially the oral sex.

Did the Moms quote Hitler approvingly? I'd have to know context.

Hunh?

You know, you're right. What was I thinking? Your average mom probably quotes AH about 10 times a day. I myself quoted him about three times this morning. In fact, i spend a lot of time looking for non Nazi quotes of his to use.

Because, let's face it, if you're running a political group not trying to ban books, there's no one better person to quote than a man who was one of the original book burners.

And I do not accept the ACLU's definition of censorship.

What a shock. I wonder if you accept the things you like about what the ACLU does?

What's your definition of censorship?

If you dont believe there's any objectivity then you shouldn't claim that people act in a partisan manner. And, if the Moms of Liberty agree with you, then why do they have to disguise their name? What about them is about Liberty? Why dont they call themselves "Moms who couldnt get the school boards to see things their way but they still want books removed from school libraries because theyre right and everyone else is a kommie"? Wouldn't that be a better name?

And the ALA etc. HAVE indeed taken positions on books, to exclude. Librarians have professional associations, same as other proffesions, and those associations take positions on political issues including what collections should and should not include. Do some more research.

I dont know where youre going with this. Somehow the Librarians are conspiring to keep books out of their libraries? Is that how the books Moms of Liberty dont like end up going into the Libraries?

Is this double reverse censorship where the librarians are running objectionable material into the libraries?

Im not that interested in this in the weeds issue. If you have something for me to look at, please post it.

The quote used in the newsletter was taken from a speech Hitler gave during a 1935 rally: "He alone, who OWNS the youth, GAINS the future."

I know where the quote comes from. Apparently, she claims she didnt. Poor thing, probably hasnt read an actual book in a decade. Some behind the scenes guy fed her that quote.

No irony to you that an org. claiming to shield children against brainwashing is using one of history's premier hate mongers opinions on teaching children?

Maybe you would be kind enough to email her and suggest she does some research?

Does that in any way endorse Hitler or National Socialism? One could make the same point from, e.g., the Jesuits, whose influence was based on schools, or indeed from Scripture: "Train up a child . . ." It happens to be true.

Right, and you and several of the other pro Moms for Liberty posters have expressed that sentiment, both openly and tacitly, that AH quotes are A-OK.

Meanwhile, when I suggested that JD wore a woman's overcoat rather than full length shawl, you displayed outrage.

I'm sure the MOMs now do wish they had used a different quote from someone else to make the point. But I do not think the criticism directed at the MOMs for quoting Hitler is appropriate or made in good faith.

Now we owe the Moms understanding and a helping hand in their genteel quest to tell everyone what to read? Would a Hitler Youth primer pass muster with them? I don't see them trying to get that book out of libraries.

Nice rant, Charge, but why don't you explain why the books illustrated in noggins' post belong in a school library.

APDC- have you looked at the material in the link?

Nice rant, Charge, but why don't you explain why the books illustrated in noggins' post belong in a school library.

Unh, unh, unh. I answered your questions, now you need to answer some of mine.

I should walk away from this thread.
Been there not long after opening, very nice worthwhile museum.
Second though, don't start with radical just because they don't want Porno taught to elementary school students

Charge, you have NOT answered the important question: have you looked at noggin's link, at the actual books? Would YOU have them in a school library?

But I WILL define censorship for you. That is a BAD WORD and has negative connotations. But if a parent decides his child is not old enough to read something or see something on TV, that is NOT censorship. If a publisher refuses to allow one of his reporters to pursue a story, that is NOT censorship. And if my church allows only approved persons to teach in its Sunday School, THAT is not censorship. In every case, that is a legitimate exercise of authority. Because we are dealing with FINITE resources of time and attention, and so choices must be made about what is to be read or written or taught.

If an authority -- it would have to be either the state, the government with force (violence or threat of violence), OR a religion or other ideology with access to state power or equivalently powerful psychological sway -- tries to prevent ANYONE, EVERYONE, from reading something, then THAT is indeed censorship.

So the two elements of censorship are comprehensiveness and compulsion (legal or psychological force).

Books that are available on Amazon are not censored.

Now answer the question about GENDER QUEER.

Doc, your answers to my question were not very specific. And how any different to, say, the previous regime?

You've shown yourself to be a competent historian and educator with a fine understanding of nuance and definition (eg post above), so I'm still intrigued by your use of "tyranny". Did you really mean that (and all that it implies, and perhaps excuses in reaction to it), or were you just letting your political bias get the better of you?

14Bore

"Second though, don't start with radical just because they don't want Porno taught to elementary school students"

Yes, I agree with you. Wouldn't it be more radical to WANT to show those books to young children?

Silurian, I have in mind such things as the FBI investigating as "domestic terrorists" parents who protest at school board meetings, link and sending informants into conservative Roman Catholic congregations link Such abuses of the government's power seem to me to be tyrannical.

link

they don't want Porno taught to elementary school students

A quick look at where the controversial books were found had them in high school libraries.

Nick, is that acceptable to you? I have taught in three high schools over the past 40 years and in none of them would such a book be acceptable, not to the administration and not to most parents.

If an authority -- it would have to be either the state, the government with force (violence or threat of violence), OR a religion or other ideology with access to state power or equivalently powerful psychological sway -- tries to prevent ANYONE, EVERYONE, from reading something, then THAT is indeed censorship.

A group asking the government to enforce it's standards against speech is thus censorship.

Your definition of censorship above was a little too carefully crafted,self serving and twisty; here are some other takes on censorship:

link

Charge, you have NOT answered the important question: have you looked at noggin's link, at the actual books? Would YOU have them in a school library?

Are you sure you want to make this subjective, local and personal? Let me know if youre sure. You have a habit of trying this as a one way street. But it's a two way street. if you do this, dont go running to the mods when you dont like my personal answer.

Books that are available on Amazon are not censored.

If they're available on Amazon, why not leave them in the library?

Now answer the question about GENDER QUEER.

What's the question around this?

I wouldn't want those books to be read or shown to my children. That's just common sense. Er, ah maybe there is no such thing as COMMON sense anymore.

Nick, is that acceptable to you?

Not what I was saying at all. I was replying to the exaggerated claim that these books are for elementary students.

Charge, stop dodging. Should the books in noggins' link be in school libraries?

Nick maybe this will help. I pulled one example.

Subject: LGBTQ Family + Gender Diversity Elementary Teaching Guide (updated 2022-2023)


link

Subject: San Francisco mandates teaching gender identity in elementary school: 'parental involvement not required'


link

Learning Gender identity is not pornography. You are trying to cover up deliberate lying by changing the topic.

I looked at the learning guides. Only briefly. But seemed reasonable to me.

I have no problem with young kids learning about gender identity. My kids went to school with a child who changed gender mid way through grade 2. With really good reasons I wont go into here. Not everyone is lucky enough to be born fully formed.

I have no problem with kids learning about families that are different -- two dads, two mums, mixed race, or other complex combinations. Because they will encounter such families.

The general rule is kids need to learn to be tolerant. Something that schools have obviously failed at.

Charge, stop dodging. Should the books in noggins' link be in school libraries?

Like Nick said, the majority of those books seemed to have been hunted down in High school libraries. This mischaracterization that little childrens are being subjected to this in class is dishonest to stir panic.

It looks like the vast majority of the schools told the complaining parents to shove off. The list of books have value for children that suffer abuse or are depressed. Not everything can be judged on the values of hyper prudish parents that think anything involving sex is condemn-able.

And if those are the worst books, then this isn't that big of an issue and it isn't being handled correctly. The solution might be to not allow those parents' children to access the libraries. Just stay out.

Here's a random book I picked from a fuller list that Moms for Liberty didn't want people to see:

link

Edited by National Book Award finalist Ibi Zoboi, and featuring some of the most acclaimed bestselling Black authors writing for teens today—Black Enough is an essential collection of captivating stories about what it's like to be young and Black in America. A selection of the Schomburg Center's Black Liberation Reading List.

If Im not mistaken Richard Wright's "Black Boy" was also banned once because the racists didn't like the light it shone on a serious American issue. This looks to be a similar movement; small hearted, nasty, social reactionaries wrapped up in a victim's bun.

Adolf Hitler as a motivational spirit is infinitely more harmful to children than any of these books. Frankly, Confederate History Month is too. I dont believe there is any such thing as accidental Adolf Hitler quotes and that's enough to tar that society forever.

I suspected that this group was funded by an ultra religious (If not cultish), extremist group and it looks like that is the case. This is just a Mom-faced front to save the children to recruit people to believe the government is the enemy.

link

The group's most notable GOP affiliation comes from Christian Ziegler, vice chairman of the Florida Republican Party. Ziegler spoke to The Washington Post and praised Moms for Liberty, saying, "I have been trying for a dozen years to get 20- and 30-year-old females involved with the Republican Party, and it was a heavy lift to get that demographic. But now Moms for Liberty has done it for me

Pictures from an October 15 Moms for Liberty event about CRT in public schools also revealed the conspiratorial basis for the group's claims. A projected slide from the event claimed that "globalists, utopians, socialists, totalitarians and the UN are using public schools to undermine freedom and Christianity."

link

Oh noes:

link

Some of them also seem to have their snouts in the till:

link

So you've got the extremists bit, the conspiracy bit, the anti government bit and the early stage fraud bit. Pretty much case closed.

Nick. Sorry it did not address your question. I thought you meant the concepts of the LBGTQ lifestyle was not being taught in elementary schools and LBGQT books were not available in their libraries. If you are looking specifically for "Gender Queer", no help. Maybe you will have to wait on Doc.

If some of you are so concerned about what young people might be exposed to in library books…what the heck do you think they can (and do) access on their computers and phones?? The horse has already left the barn, guys.

I see we are not going to be able to find any common ground on this.

True Doc and the Topic still has nothing that I can see to do with history. 😉

Nick Bowler "I looked at the learning guides. Only briefly. But seemed reasonable to me."

I wonder if you scrolled farther enough down. I might not use the word 'aberrant' but much of the content selected is graphic to say the least, particularly -and quite literally- when in comic book form. Mileage will of course vary but I am pretty broad minded and I wonder what place such material has in a school library.

MacBeth isn't history in any form Doc. It is propaganda presented in the form of entertainment. The play is inspired by history. The play has a history. As a vehicle for presenting history it is no more valid than the cowboys and Indian movies I grew up with.

Circling back to the original topic. Moms doesn't want to ban certain subjects from schools. It wants to ban the presentation of certain views on those subjects. In this there is a tie in with the American Revolution. As the war approached it became increasingly difficult to even discuss certain subjects unless you did so from the party line. Some of those who tried to present alternate views had unpleasant things happen to them. This ugliness then got written out of the Rah Rah Histories of the American Revolution that kids were raised on. Moms involvement should have been in the context of a discussion on Censorship and Suppression of Dissent in the AWI and the days leading up to it.

Don't any of you guys have any miniatures to paint? Should I send you some of mine?

Speaking for myself, and I expect for most of the Moms, we don't care what consenting adults do in their bedroom. We just don't want to hear about it, and we do not want CHIILDREN to hear about it. We don't have a problem with giving the legal advantages of civil marriage to same sex couples -- though we wish they would reserve the word "marriage" for a man and a woman. We do consider homosexuality sinful, as our Holy Scripture informs us, but we are ALL sinners, and all are welcome in our churches.

What we object to, strenuously, is the insistence that what we consider sinful is NOT, and the requirement that we either agree to that or shut up. We can't and we won't. We object to the normalization of immorality, and especially to its inculcation in schools which we pay for.

In short, it is not a sin against which our political efforts are directed, but the normalization and forced acceptance of sin. That is not really too subtle, but our enemies excel in twisting it to suit their own purposes.

As they say in NYC, "We're coming for your children".

Amen for Doc!