Looking Into The Minds Of Moderns Or Understanding Children?

An interesting article at today's American Thinker by Cindy Simpson is a perfect follow up to yesterday's post. Simpson's piece uses Diane West's book, The Death of the Grown-Up: How America's Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization as a springboard. The article dovetails nicely with much of what I've written about "Botox for the Brain":

Ever wonder why conversations with adults often leave you feeling like you were arguing with teenagers? . . . Peer approval greatly influences immature minds.  It's the juvenile thinkers that call others names like "racist" and "birther" (and are especially fearful of being called such names themselves), protest with actual sticks and stones, and bully those who don't agree with them.  Gray-haired ponytail types dominate college campuses, teaching groupthink to the next generation . . . Tocqueville warned of the nanny state and the power of despotism as resembling "parental authority if, fatherlike, it tried to prepare its charges for a man's life but on the contrary, it only tries to keep them in perpetual childhood."

Fundamentally, much of the "groupthink" which dominates our educational system is, quite simply, juvenile and the product of those locked in adolescence. Just remember that when you are debating someone with that mindset: you are having a conversation with someone who is, for the sake of your debate, a child. The more one reads their writings about history and listens to their political speeches, the more evident that becomes. This is why I find them so hard to suffer. The older I get, the less patience I have with adults who act like children.

The author of the American Thinker piece concludes with:

More than "stand athwart history, yelling stop" -- we must shift -- not always into "forward," but even reverse at times, to find our way back to the road that leads to the shining city on the hill. [And adulthood.]

The AT piece reminded me of something Richard Weaver once wrote:

Their institutional world is a product of toil and discipline; of this they are no longer aware. Like the children of rich parents, they have been pampered by the labor and self-discipline of those who  went before; they begin to think that luxuries, though unearned, are rightfully theirs. They fret when their wishes are not gratified; they turn to cursing and abusing; they look for scapegoats."

I am repulsed by that mindset - often disguised as "historical analysis" by "historians" and others to ostensibly garnish their own reputation. Unable to measure up to previous generations, they attempt to tear them down. Like a child throwing a temper tantrum over being denied a toy, it gets them noticed - at least by their peers. It is, at its core, pure narcissism; the self-centered and clueless world of a child. 

When I consider the hardships of past generations, I realize how easy our generation has lived - reaping the benefits of our forefathers' sacrifices; standing on their shoulders so to speak. I think of my grandfathers who fought in WWI and WWII, survived and raised large families during the Great Depression and, with guts and sheer determination, rebuilt America into a powerhouse never seen before in world history. And then I observe far too many Americans whine because someone else won't pay their mortgage while they pop another Prozac and flop their collective obese butts on the couch in their air-conditioned homes, remote in hand one hand, a large bag of potato chips in the other while they listen to some other child "expert" reinforce their own lack of personal responsibility - a mindset that now seems to permeate American culture. It's just all so nauseating - and un-American.

Ultimately, historians who represent this mindset have very little understanding of the craft in which they self-proclaim to be experts.  As historian Paul Johnson so aptly points out:

From the early Thirties . . . the intellectuals, carrying with them a predominant part of academia and workers in the media, moved into a position of criticism and hostility towards the structural ideas of the American consensus: the free market, capitalism, individualism, enterprise, independence, and personal responsibility.

Is this not the ideological bent of much of academia and the youth-dominated Occupy Wall Street crowd? Ah, the wide-eyed wonder and naïveté of childhood!

But where are the adults?

A Historian Defines The Power Of Cool

Victor Davis Hanson recently explained the power of cool. His piece is reminiscent of some things I've written:

. . . the correct approach to this topic is one of a "mature mindset" - something sorely lacking in the Botox-brained academic elites constantly trying to appear "cool" and "in the know." They remind me of all the snooty, primped and pruned "in crowd" in my senior high school class - obsessed with the latest fad and trend and wanting to remain "forever young." Ever wonder why so many of these leftist, radical anti-American Exceptionalism academics want to connect with their younger students? Botox for the brain. Botox is the perfect metaphor for these folks: phony, cosmetic, shallow, and narcissistic. ~ RGW

But Hanson expands on the "Botox for the Brain" idea by slicing and dicing much more skillfully than I ever could in a recent piece titled, The Power of Cool:

It would seem that the disconnect is liberal politics, the coin by which one buys a sort of medieval indulgence from liberal gatekeepers in the media, academia, the arts, and the foundations that permits one to continue the pursuit and enjoyment of lucre and to indulge the baser appetites without harassment — in the manner that the medieval moneylender or sexual zealot still got to heaven by buying marble for the cash-strapped cathedral . . . In short, millions of well-off Americans, from the entering college student to the full professor of law, from the billionaire thief to the president of the United States himself, endlessly chase cool.

You can read the rest of Hanson's piece here.

As I Suspected - Just More Confirmation About Fox News "Dummies"

This is a follow up to a previous post about Fox News and the fact most Americans are getting their news and opinions there. If you'll go to that post, you can read the exchange I had with a professional historian who suggested that those who get their news from Fox are "less informed." He cited an academic study as his proof. (Eye roll) - Yes, of course, we should be listening to and watching government funded propaganda outlets like NPR and PBS. Well, as it turns out I was right. The "statistics" from the academic study were apparently skewed - I believe purposely - to make it appear Fox News viewers are less informed. 

The academic "study" to which the commenter referred to in that previous most is just more propaganda; pushing a self-serving narrative and agenda that conservatives are just dumb Neanderthals.

But does it really? MSNBC received similarly low scores, and their numbers were not oversampled. In fact, if this graph showing knowledge of domestic affairs is to be believed, the people who ended up the most misinformed were conservatives who made the mistake of watching MSNBC. The only people who ended up misinformed after watching Fox, on the other hand, were liberals:

Keep it up - you folks continue to confirm what a growing number of Americans already suspect know. As I am lamenting more and more, this is just getting way too easy. The ruling class elites no longer own the narrative. The alternative media, the blogosphere, homeschooling, and technology are all working in synergy and tearing down your ivory towers. You are going to have to deal with reality, whether you like it or not. You can read more details about this bogus study here, as well as another one here. As always, when the facts don't fit the left's agenda, they just create their own. It's really fun to watch them have a head-on collision with the truth.

The Civil War Uncovered - Episode 6

Another great video production by the folks at Minelab. This is history, relic hunting, and metal detecting done correctly.

It's All Just A Mirage

There is no indoctrination nor politicization in government schools. Follow up to yesterday's post:

The Obama Presidency Is Historic

"We have not seen such a divisive figure in modern American history as we have over the last three and a half years." ~ Senator Marco Rubio


"He is the most ill-prepared person to assume the presidency in my lifetime." ~ Governor Chris Christie

Historic.

Public School Teacher Loses It Over Obama

(Sorry for the profanity.)

The student being challenged is much smarter than the teacher. The teacher is a blithering idiot. Hey, but don't worry, many of the history and Civil War bloggers tell us there's no politicization in our educational system. More blithering idiots. "The fact of the day" ??? Good Lord.

The teacher then tells the student – wrongly – that it is a criminal offense to say bad things about a president. “Do you realize that people were arrested for saying things bad about Bush? Do you realize you are not supposed to slander the president?” . . . According to our source, the student had asked his friend to record the discussion to "prove to his parents what he has been trying to tell them for some time. The teacher in this video has a long history of pushing a liberal agenda, by shouting down students. She is very intolerant of other points of view that she does not share. The atmosphere at this school is not very conducive to opposing views."

You don't say.

More here. Record away students, record away.

Old Virginia Blog - Seventh Anniversary

Today marks the 7th anniversary of this blog. I can't believe I'm still doing this.

I Like Old Trucks

Heritage Takes An Academic Phony To School

Here's an update to my earlier post about forked tongue Harvard academic Elizabeth Warren's phony claim that she's part Cherokee . . . 

You have claimed something you had no right to claim -- our history and our heritage and our identity.

So you see, heritage and history do go together; that is if you know how to tell the truth about both which, as we know, is an uncommon trait among a number of academics.

Complete story here. I'm telling you, this is just getting way too easy.

The Founder's Dream Or President Obama's?

"The producer of the film is a bona fide Best Picture Oscar-Winner, Gerald R. Molen, who's worked on blockbusters such as 'Schindler's List' and 'Jurassic Park' with Steven Spielberg. For this production, Molen's teamed up with D'Souza to tell the story the media won't and to do it using the most powerful medium available, the motion picture."

Choose wisely. More here.

Article Update

I just received notice that my article about restoring dug ax heads will run in the October issue of Western and Eastern Treasures Magazine. To date, I've recovered a pre-revolutionary ax head, one Union issued camp ax head used during the WBTS, and several 19th century ax heads, including a double-bitted one.

Federal issued camp ax head ~
Found near Brandy Station
(Before restoration)

Indoctrination At Our Universities

Some of you who have been reading this blog for a while will know that a number of academic historians and history bloggers have come here to challenge the empirical evidence that colleges and universities are dominated by leftists. How stupid they look. Anyway, here's yet more egg on their collective faces.

Here’s a shocker: the top 100 universities in America prefer left-leaning commencement speakers to conservatives by a ratio of seven-to-one, according to a new report from the Young America’s Foundation (YAF), the principal youth activism wing of the conservative movement.

And . . .

“An education from leftist professors that—combined with the Obama administration’s policies—has left 53 percent of recent grads unemployed or underemployed. These commencement speakers are just the icing on higher education’s indoctrination cake.”

No, there's no bias on campus. Of course not. Silly me. More here.

Civil War Magazines - What I Like - Part One

 
My favorite Civil War print publication has, in the last 18 months, become North South Trader's Civil War. Though I've known of the publication for years (they've been publishing since 1973) and have read numerous issues before, I only started subscribing 2 years ago when I became an avid relic hunter. I'm certainly glad I did. Though geared toward CW relic hunters and collectors, it bills itself as a publication "for collectors, researchers, relic hunters, and historians of the War Between the States." And it is most certainly that. Published 6 times a year, there is enough in each issue to satisfy anyone who studies the WBTS - well almost anyone.

As publisher Steve Sylvia has alluded to in the most recent issue's editorial titled "Apologies and appeasement", those who concentrate on so-called "social history" (I think Robert Krick calls some of this emphasis "psychobabble") may not find the articles "socially conscious" enough; which is why it has become my favorite publication. When I subscribe to magazines which focus on history, I really don't want to read "preachy" styled articles emphasizing a morality play regarding the real Civil War myth: "North good, South bad." 

As  historian Brion McLanahan has pointed out:

The importance of this myth is that it is used to divide the country into progressive and enlightened (the North) and reactionary and racist (the South), and allows historians to portray all of American history through that divide, dismissing the Southern founders and Southern arguments about limited government and states' rights while praising ever-expanding powers for the federal government . . . ( The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers, page 14.)

Quite frankly, I'm sick of it. There's enough of that shallow, agenda-driven, self-serving silliness available in the blogosphere at no charge. There's really no need for me to pay a subscription fee to have it delivered to my home.

Many of these publications (I'll showcase one or two in upcoming posts) have been sucked into blending multicultural identity politics with Civil War history. They often feature writers who - whether in the publication itself on in some other medium - love to mock and poke fun at the Confederate heritage folks; despite the fact that much of these magazine's advertising is directed toward that same demographic. Nothing quite like paying someone to insult you on a monthly basis while they simultaneously try to get you to purchase what many of their most avid fans would call "neo-Confederate art." I don't know about you, but where I come from, we call that hypocrisy. 

Back to NSTCW - Steve Sylvia's editorial in the most recent issue was so spot on that I'd like to share a few excepts with readers here. His comments are often one of the best features of the magazine and so refreshing in offering a different perspective from the "other" all too predictable PC commentary that has become so common in recent years.

From "Apologies and appeasement":

I read something today that made my jaw drop. Marc Pachter, the interim director of the venerable Smithsonian Museum of National History, commented to reporters, "We’re so getting away from the time when history was all about white men on horses." 

"White men on horses"? Doesn't that sound like something some college freshman would write to please his or her flunky professor? (What's he got against horses anyway?) The fact is that the nation's history is, to a large degree, about "white men on horses." Whether it be our founding era, the WBTS, or the expansion west, that's just the way it is. Facts are stubborn things. Now, I'm all for bringing to light some of the lesser known aspects of American history. Some of my own work in the public history arena has done just that. (See here and here.)

But if Pachter isn't hot to trot for the white boys on stallions, what does he like? You're not going to believe this.

This graduate of the University of California at Berkeley has forged ahead with an exhibit featuring Kermit the Frog, Dorothy’s ruby slippers, and electronic gadgetry from 2004, now considered "ancient technology." As he said, "This is a broader definition of what is important to remember."

I told you that you weren't going to believe it. Well, I suppose that will please the chicks with ruby slippers and green slimy skin constituencies. Yes, Kermit and Dorothy are a "broader definition of what is important" than are "white men on horses". And I'm supposed to take "professional historians" seriously? Some of you are becoming quite the caricature. I would suggest you might want to start distancing yourselves from some of this Kookville perspective if you want to retain any sense of credibility. Of course, maybe you can't. Maybe you actually reside in Kookville. Or maybe you're just lacking in gastrointestinal parts.

Sylvia then goes after Waite Rawls who, as many of you know, is the current president and CEO of the Museum of the Confederacy. Now, to be fair to Mr. Rawls, he's got a tightrope to walk - trying to please a number of constituencies interested in Civil War history. I'm sure its a challenging job. I've had a few conversations with Waite and have come to his defense on a number of occasions. However, I would have to agree with Sylvia in regards to his comments about Rawls' and the recent flag flap over the opening of a new MOC branch in Appomattox. I think Rawls' reasoning is lacking in any real logic. It's political correctness dressed up in drag as "history":

. . . Rawls, has refused to allow the Confederate flag to be flown over the new satellite museum of the Confederacy at Appomattox . . . In explanation, the ebullient director stated, "Appomattox is a metaphor for the reunification of the country. To put the Confederate flag into that display would be a historical untruth."

So how does Sylvia respond to this rather strange explanation put forth by the son of a Confederate Veteran and member of the SCV?

I believe that is but one interpretation of the place. It is also where the Confederate flag last flew over Lee’s army in a major conflict. It is where the last blood was shed in Virginia in the most significant war of the 19th century. If we follow Rawls’ interpretation of reunification, wouldn’t it be appropriate to fly both the US and the CS flags together as this was where they last both flew above warring Americans? 

Of course it would be appropriate. Sylvia makes an excellent point. To suggest otherwise is absurd on its face and the kind of thinking which most often finds its dwelling place in an alternate universe; which, come to think of it, is the abode of similar politically correct nonsense. Sylvia continues:

Doesn’t the UN building in New York City fly flags of nations, some of whom terrorize, murder, and enslave people at this moment? Where is the hue and cry against those banners?

Ah, yes, the UN does fly flags of nations which still practice slavery, imprison political dissenters, abuse women, persecute certain faiths, etc, etc, etc. But protesting those flags, in the words of Dr. McLanahan, could not be "used to divide the country into progressive and enlightened (the North) and reactionary and racist (the South), and allows historians to portray all of American history through that divide, dismissing the Southern founders and Southern arguments about limited government and states' rights . . "

See how this works? As Sylvia observes, "I find the contradiction hard to take.This is simply political correctness at its most hypocritical extreme."

Indeed it is. Though I've defended Rawls in the past, he looks rather ridiculous defending the flag decision in Appomattox.

Sylvia concludes his insightful commentary with this:

Maybe I’m an anachronism, but it seems too many of our political leaders and museum directors are too willing to take the easy road and simply apologize to shut up the opposition. That does disservice to our ancestor’s courage, will, and determination. They set the bar for us and it’s difficult to measure up. But it’s easy to lower the flag, mutter, "I’m sorry," and put Kermit on a pedestal.

Me, I’ll stick with the old guys on horseback.

Yeah, me too. Someone at the MOC and the Smithsonian needs to grow some vertebral column. I suppose, as an alternative, they could always borrow some from Kermit.

But there's much more to NSTCW than Steve Sylvia's masterful opining each issue. There's well-written, well-researched articles about personalities, equipment, battles, discoveries,  and, of course, relic hunts. The most recent issue (Vol. 36, No. 3) included articles on Confederate shotgun bayonets, the discovery of a Pennsylvania cavalry camp as well as a fascinating story about Harvey's Scouts - the story of 8 Confederate scouts and their capture of 52 federals, along with their horses and equipment. Often, the articles will center around a particular relic or article of history related to the Civil War. But the articles frequently go deeper than examining the item; often discussing it's discovery, the soldier and/or unit connected to the artifact, their experiences during the war, as well as after. Following the thread of events from the time of the conflict to the present is always a fascinating journey through time. The most recent issue also included a piece by an acquaintance of mine and a frequent contributor, Quindy Robertson. Quindy discusses a surprise attack by John Hunt Morgan and some relics he's uncovered related to that event.

Another recent issue, (Vol. 35, No. 2), featured articles on Civil War photography, "snake" buckles, and a "Mystery Crate" from a Civil War arsenal - all fascinating reads.

Each issue is a collector level publication. By that I'm referring to not only the quality of the articles, but also the actual physical attributes of the magazine. The covers are made of heavy stock and always include beautiful images and photography. Even the ads are exquisite to look at. The inside pages are also made of heavier stock than you'll find in most other history related publications. These magazines are heirloom quality and intended to be kept and collected - a welcome and refreshing rarity in today's mass-produced, throw-it-away society - which is what I usually did with most of the "other" CW magazines I used to subscribe to. 

Bottom line: NSTCW is a publication for adults who prefer to get their preaching in church, without a subscription fee. I would highly recommend it to readers of this blog. Visit their website and subscribe here. You can read Mr. Sylvia's complete opinion piece here.

Civil War Magazines - What I Like - Part Two . . . coming up soon . . . 

Limbaugh Makes History

"Just before 1:00 p.m. the mad scramble in the halls of the state capitol began, barriers started going up and additional Capitol police and the Highway Patrol started drifting in. The word leaked out that today was the day for Limbaugh to take his place in Missouri history . . . As a member of the Hall of Famous Missourians, Limbaugh will have a bronze bust displayed in the Capitol alongside the likes of President Harry Truman, Mark Twain, Walt Disney, George Washington Carver and Stan Musial."

Story here.

Cristiada - Providential Timing?