A rant about history [Tuesday, Dec. 14, 2004, 9:38 am]
I officially have one week left of school, and then it's over. History class would have been over yesterday, but we were delayed a week, so I'll end up taking my final on December 20th. That's a bit too close to Christmas if you ask me, but there's nothing I can do about it.
I really love history and all, but to be honest, this class really hasn't done much for me. I learned a lot more in high school, reading books and documents rather than biased textbooks. There are a lot of things I dislike about the liberal version of history, and one of them is that my professor didn't mention a word about a single battle during the entire course. We covered the Revolutionary War (simply referred to as "the revolution"), the War of 1812, and the Civil War, but hardly anything about the battles or Generals was mentioned at all. I don't think war is pretty, but it's an essential part of our past, which shouldn't be glossed over like that.
Apparently, she seemed to think we would be more interested in learning about "the role of women in blah blah blah era...". To her credit, she did let us watch one episode of Ken Burns' Civil War series, which I find fascinating. And of course, when she asked our opinions on it, one girl said, "It didn't talk enough about the roles of women. It was all battles and carnage and all that stuff." No, really? Battles and carnage - in the Civil War? What kind of history is this supposed to be?
"Women did this, and women couldn't vote, and women did that, and they still couldn't vote... and, oh yeah, a bunch of men died in battle to keep our Union together and help free the slaves. But women still couldn't vote."
Maybe that's an exaggerated version, but it annoyed me just the same. Let's just learn what happened instead of looking through history with a feminist's lens, please. That's just another reason why I can't stand feminism. Let's just appreciate all the work women did in the home and in their jobs, rather than lamenting the fact that their roles then were different than they're trying to be made today.
And when Abraham Lincoln was portrayed as someone who probably wasn't all that interested in freeing the slaves, or only did it for political reasons, because others told him to - that just made me mad. Lincoln was one of the greatest Presidents we ever had, and I'm sure he knew that once he signed the Emancipation Proclamation, his life was on the line. In a sense, you could say he died for what he believed. I just had to speak about that, and fortunately there were a few others in the class who agreed with me.
Abraham Lincoln said that if he was remembered for anything, he hoped it would be for signing the Emancipation Proclamation. Sorry, Abe. In this generation it seems the most important info is that the Proclamation, "didn't free all the slaves."
Vitality - Tuesday, Aug. 11, 2009