In the June 1969 issue of Civil War History — Volume 5, Number 2, pages 116-132 — a renowned Southern historian attacked the legacy of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.
"No single war figure stands in greater need of reevaluation than Lee," wrote Thomas L. Connelly, the late University of South Carolina professor. "One ponders whether the South may not have fared better had it possessed no Robert E. Lee."
Connelly's essay was among the first academic musket shots fired on Lee's standing as an outmatched but not outwitted military genius presiding over a Lost Cause — a reputation celebrated in fawning biographies and monuments like the one removed Friday in New Orleans.
Was General Lee overrated? Get your armchair historian on...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by VLM on Monday June 12 2017, @12:32PM (3 children)
The problem with a policy of censorship because they're not progressive enough is there is no logical limit. We'll have to bulldoze over the washington monument because he owned slaves, and nuke the city of Rome from orbit just to be sure because the Roman Empire was rather problematic. We gotta bulldoze the Parthenon and the Colosseum. And the Vatican. Dr MLK jr was not progressive enough WRT feminism according to the standards of the current year, so he's gotta be memory-holed now too.
I tell ya, people who think 1984 and BNW and animal farm are instruction manuals... ugh. IIRC the main character's day job in 1984 was censorship of history books.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 12 2017, @06:28PM (2 children)
Yep, 'cause not celebrating someone is the exact same thing as systematically removing him from the history books.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday June 12 2017, @06:42PM (1 child)
Give them time...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @06:55PM
Actually, from a liberal perspective it is more important to leave the history intact so that people can learn from their mistakes. But hey, I'm responding to VLM so this is all gibberish apparently.