
When politically correct pundits and journalists defended the censorship of Mark Twain's novel 'The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,' I watched in disappointed disbelief. At that moment, I predicted propaganda to entirely whitewash this country's history.
I didn't realize it would be only a matter of days.
After GOP members felt inspired to read the clean version of the Constitution on the House floor last week, conveniently ignoring such seismic events as slavery and prohibition, the theatrical buffoonery gave their tea-drinking stepchildren in Tennessee a brilliant idea:
Why not erase any and all mention of slavery and genocide from United States textbooks all together?
Envision it, America!
Textbooks scrubbed free of slaves' blood and government-sanctioned murder, ensuring that history books are palatable for generations of bright-eyed schoolchildren for generations to come.Tweet
After a news conference on Wednesday, about two dozen members of the Tea Party of Tennessee presented lawmakers with a list of "priorities and "demands" for the 2011 legislative session. According to the Party, it would "besmirch the image of the Founding Fathers" to be honest about this nation's history.

In material distributed to the legislators, they demanded that state laws governing textbook criteria ensure that "no portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership."
Party spokesman and Fayette County attorney Hal Rounds said the group wants to address "an awful lot of made-up criticism" about, for instance, the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another.
"The thing we need to focus on about the founders is that, given the social structure of their time, they were revolutionaries who brought liberty into a world where it hadn't existed, to everybody -- not all equally instantly -- and it was their progress that we need to look at."
It was their progress we need to look at?
Theirs.
When Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona, the "mecca of racism and bigotry," signed into law a bill that prohibits ethnic studies from being taught in public schools because it teaches "ethnic chauvinism" and leads minority students to believe they had been "oppressed," I didn't think the ignorance would be contagious, but I was wrong.
As it stands, African Americans rarely get mentioned in any historical context at all if not that of the slave or loyal sidekick. Only the most passive of us managed to escape unscathed into the history books and now this bastion of bigotry from "the Volunteer State" wants to exclude even that so we don't "besmirch" our founding fathers' legacy?

If they were to get their self-serving wish, little white children would look at their black classmates in puzzlement attempting to figure out what planet they landed from, since history would make no mention of our more turbulent arrival to "the land of the free."
When the Huck Finn controversy erupted, I was disturbed that otherwise intelligent people deemed "slave" a more child appropriate word "than n**ger." The n-word is what slave masters called their slaves, making them both sides of the same coin.
Our children need to know their history. They deserve to understand what we've overcome, so that they know what they can become.
That this blatant attempt at revisionism is actually being submitted as a feasible option for the education of our youth speaks volumes about the depths of desperation some conservatives have reached: They are attempting to hypnotize our children into a mindless state of groupthink in hopes of erasing what continuously exists, even if in different forms.
If they can re-create history in a way that minimizes slavery, then it will be easier for all the subsequent inequalities to be deemed an exaggeration. Americans will perceive the judicial, educational, occupational and health care disparities facing minorities not as remnants of slavery and Jim Crow, but a testament to the laziness and apathy of African Americans.
If that shift occurs, it will be easier to implement their radical call for the repeal of the 17th Amendment, bringing this country back to square one as it pertains to race relations.
Some may think my assertions are far-fetched, and last week I would have agreed with them.
Until I witnessed a resurgence of Dixiecrats joining with educated scholars to successfully change the words of a dead man.
So to the Tea Party of Tennessee: Maybe you all should strive to genuinely erase prejudice and injustice in this country instead of perpetuating division, violence and historical myths. Then maybe your legacy won't need to be whitewashed to absolve your descendants of guilt as you're pathetically trying to do now.


Comments: (197)
Add a comment
By: mysherieamour@aol.com on 3/09/2011 8:30AM
Now I know these fools have lost their minds. The nerve of these idiot's. I say we bring back black history anyway, it's bad enough that the only way our children can learn of our history is threw us and not in school. How crazy is that! I say we should all get together protest and have black history taught in our schools that we pay our hard earned tas dollars for. Come on people when our we going to stop going for everything they dish out. We the people have control.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Arriethom1 on 1/14/2011 1:15PM
Unfortunately, the biggest reason that this is happening is because WE don't know our history well enough.
We don't teach it to our children. If you ask many, if not most African Americans about slavery, they will tell you that they don't want to talk about it because it's too painful or we are beyond all of that. Many of us have no clue about our history. If history is ignored, it is doomed to repeat itself. If we want black history to remain in the American conscious, then it's up to us to keep it there and stop running away from it.
Report This
By: Is it? on 1/15/2011 12:10AM
Slavery was not an original "White" ideal.
Going back in history you'll find examples of slavery throughout.
Egyptians and (Africans) owned and used slaves acquired via warfare.
Africans were made slaves by other Africans following wars well before the "discovery" of America. Slave trades opened up when tribal leaders realized they could trade their slaves for shiny little European trinkets.
If we all were the same color the issue would not exist to the degree it does in this country.
It only exists because the skin color of those involved is different.
If not so, why is it not such a big “historical” deal that Africans enslaved other Africans?
I vote keep it in the history books inclusive of ALL the HISTORY to make it complete.
Let’s not forget that it was within this “America” some of the steps taken to end slavery were taken. Also do not forget that some of those first steps were taken by whites (for blacks) and that’s another fact that many hard-core race mongers do not want others to know as it would diminish their fight to be right.
Report This
By: SteveLC on 1/15/2011 2:25PM
One of the sad thing is that White man His-story is being taught in our school and churces, and not History. White Americans will continue to try and wipe away the sins of their forefather. And the sad thing is that racism is alive and well here in America. The election of President Obama made many so called CHRISTians to shelve their religion to spew hate and lies about him. The Jewish population had vowed that they will never let the world forget what happen to them during Hitler reign. But yet many Whites want the world to forget the atrocities that was afflicted upon Black Americans even to 2011. Black Americans are being killed by a few of racist police officers, and they only receive little reprimand or none. Blacks are being falsely jailed and executed only to find out many years later that they were innocent, railroaded by white racist prosecutors and white police officers.. Black are the last to be hired, and first to be fired. Drugs are given freely to many Blacks to get them hooked. Billboards advertising cigarettes and alcohol are placed in the Black neighborhood, but not in the white neighborhoods. The Tea Party is nothing but another consevative racist party.
Report This
By: FRANK on 1/15/2011 5:31PM
THAT PEE AND SYHIT PARTY ISN'T GOING TO BE
HAPPY UNTIL THEY TOTALLY DIVIDE THE COUNTRY AND
PEOPLE ARE FIGHTING IN THE STREETS....NOW WE HAVE
A PRICK PEE PARTY GOVERNOR FROM MAINE TELLING THE
NAACP TO, "KISS HIS ASS", WHEN INVITED TO A MLK
CELEBRATION, THE SAME PEE PARTY THREATENING A
BLACK REPUBLICAN....THE PEE PARTY IS CONNECTED
WITH EVERY GUTTER WHITE SUPREMIST, RACIST, ANTI
JEWISH, NEO NAZI, SKIN HEAD TRASH......THEY ARE
ORGANIZED, HAVE FINANCIAL BACKING, AND KNOW HOW TO
USE SINISTER ORGANIZING METHODS...I REALLY PRAY
THAT BLACKS FIGHT HARD THE NEXT FEW ELECTIONS TO
GET THAT PEE PARTY TRASH OUT OF OFFICE..... THEY
WOULD HAVE ALL BLACKS IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS
Report This
By: mikochk on 1/16/2011 11:02AM
This reply is to "Is It".
Yes, while it is true that Africans enslaved Africans, it was not the same type of slavery. They still had "rights" and they it wasn't necessarily a lifetime of imprisonment for them and every generation after them. So, please don't try to use that to make African Americans feel as though they started it. I'm so tired of people trying to use that to continue to keep feeling inferior in some way. When Africans were sold into slavery by Africans, the Africans had no idea the type of horror that would evolve from it. They assumed the "white man" would treat the slaves the same way they treated them. Chattel slavery was the most inhumane unheard of slavery ever and there is no way anyone should ever try to justify or compare the African slaves by African kingdoms to Chattel slavery outside of Africa.
Report This
By: Watcher Watchmen on 1/16/2011 5:47PM
*******************************************
*******************************************
By: Is it? on 1/15/2011 12:10AM
Slavery was not an original "White" ideal.
Going back in history you'll find examples of slavery throughout.
Egyptians and (Africans) owned and used slaves acquired via warfare.
Africans were made slaves by other Africans following wars well before the "discovery" of America
*******************************************
*******************************************
“Is it?” –really that simple? NOT SO FAST!
Although “it is” correct of a period where “it was” commonplace for humans to be used as “TOOLS”.
Whether or not volunteered of one’s own skills, labor by “Servitude” was the underlying understanding of the workforce rather than labor by “Savagery”.
Blacks who leaned of their sold “captives” living and being treated as pigs in a slaughterhouse, “DID REFUSE FURTHER SALES” to the slave hungry whites, who then proceeded to take them by force along with the blacks they’ve bartered with.
What was once a flourishing lifestyle of Africans ultimately became torn “Apart’heid” and been spiraling down to hell ever since.
But likewise, this is where it differs in terms of “Slavery” in and of itself and/or in that sense of mind.
Being analytical of the era, those “Black-Africans” (as referred) did also have their slaves of “Blacks” but as “Servants” serving in “Servitude” and more often acquired them as prizes won in battle with other villagers. Through reindoctrination, They’ve “ABSORBED” their captives into their own tribesmenship to replace/restrengthen their warriors killed/injured in battle and/or for overall growth and empowerment of their own village, which during their time, made more “Tribal Sense” than to decimate every living soul within the villages conquered.
(as Whites were otherwise known to do)
Aside from many of those tribal battles between African villages also being headed by (and lead by) whites, those blacks who’ve enslaved other blacks did not consider their captives as livestock for butchery, but instead as servants under servitude and didn’t treat their Black-Servants as pigs while living in grossly deplorable conditions. (as whites were otherwise more known to).
Black-servants (owned by blacks) worked alongside and mingled amongst the black tribe members, in spite of understanding them as the somewhat expendable livestock won in battle, they were also offered many opportunities to “earn citizenship morality points” (so to speak), through tribal errands and more.
The difference between Whites Owning Black Slaves and Blacks Owning Black Slaves IS and WAS clearly within the nature of their enslavements. Whites were generally more barbaric while blacks were not.
Whites slave owners treated blacks as spectacles of humiliations, mockery, sideshow freaks, human Ginny Pigs and more while providing living conditions that were grossly deplorable and therefore defeated the point of having slaves, (“Helping Hands”) yet along having been sold them.
All this and more while under white ownership but not under black ownership.
Although many whites may attempt to escape their historical crimes of black slavery behind the mask of “Blacks did it too”, one needs only to look beneath that mask and see what underlay the fundamental difference between blacks and whites owning “Black-Slaves” and the products (of those blacks) under either, are what we’re all are witnessing today.
When will these groups of whites come to terms of what they’re observing against blacks as nothing more than the historical byproducts of their own vindictiveness played out against the blacks, as exemplified throughout their history to date.
Which in turn makes them not only the accomplices of their racial criticisms but also the custodians of the crimes against black humanity as so done by their own white forefathers.
Here’s a few questions regarding the unwitted display of blind stupidity on their parts;
(1):
How can these groups of whites have the audacity to suggest the removal of a part of black history they claim tarnishes the legacy of their own white forefathers, while yet perpetuating that which has tarnished the reputation of their forefathers?
(Pathetic.)
(2):
Let’s assume all traces of black history was removed everywhere it involves any form of crimes against blacks and/or their humanity that ever existed. What then of any good would that accomplish, generations from now, as history would look back on whites of “TODAY” as “The forefathers” and see the same thing we’re all seeing “NOW” of white “Forefathers” of yester-generations.
Would these whites of today not become and/or seen as the historical “Tarnishes” they seek to removed from history books?
(Pathetic.)
(3):
Furthermore, how can these groups of whites have the audacity to suggest blacks should “Get Over The Past”, while those same whites perpetuates that which “reminds” blacks of *”The Past”* they’d rather blacks forget?
(Pathetic.)
As for more historical corrections;
Whites DID NOT lead blacks out of evils of slavery!
The realizations of a massive civil war brewing among the people of color is what did it.
** The PEACE MARCH was step “ONE” **
(During those times and held privately, much pondering took place choosing between the Holy Bible or the Gun for “dealing with” the psychotically racist madness.)
However, for those humanitarian class of whites who saw the wickedness of a racist system being displayed, governed and protected, have just as well fought for the equality of general human rights and rightfully joined the PEACE MARCH (of choice) accordingly.
However, all blacks weren’t the gullibly weak slaves that white history has “typically” portrayed them to be.
Many blacks fought off the evils of their white captives/oppressors quite well!
Their more solid melanin rich bones and muscle fibers incased within a black carbon-based membrane (skin) has given them such unrealized strengths that could only subdued when out numbered. Usually by 3 whites (typically more) to 1 black person.
With all things being equal, whites will always have a much tougher time defeating blacks in a hand-to-hand combat.
This is a scientifically physiological fact!
And the blacker blacks are, the more difficult it would be for whites to physically subdue them.
The most simplistic and most basic advantage blacks have over whites is their melanin.
This is a scientifically physiological fact which gives blacks all the predescribed advantages but also makes it that much harder for their skin to tear and allows blacks to be more agile and faster responding in physical flexing as the brain signals (via Neuromelanin) reach their designations within the human anatomy much faster per density of melanin. Aside from seeing better yet alone at all as well as hearing, tasting foods better, as well as melanin being a “Free Radial Scavenger” thus adding to why blacks look younger longer (overall more youthful) than their white counterparts or same age (with all things being equal) and including melanin being why humans are able to conceive cognitive life at all and more, it’s scientifically realized, the richer the melanin the more beneficial are the advantages of its properties within human physiology.
These facts would likely never be the highlight of white media regarding melanin, whereas, having the lack thereof brings to them the lesser of its benefits and therefore the lesser of such interests and likewise the lesser knowledge of its true beneficial facts to those who rely on white media as their major (or only) source of information.
Know thyself NOT through the eyes of thy oppressor(s), but rather as ordained through the eyes of God in heaven.
Report This
By: Tek_Knowledge on 1/17/2011 12:04PM
We should be having an interview with Hal Rounds at www.blogtalkradio.com/vickissv3 soon. Leave a message on the comment boards of our showpage, or just follow the show, and we can keep you guys up to speed.
Again, we should be interviewing this suspected white supremacist. We have already contacted him, the day/time of the interview is all that needs to be set up.
Report This
By: MissAlex on 1/18/2011 12:14PM
You got that right!!!
Report This
By: rufus on 1/19/2011 2:26PM
I suggest you concentrate on spelling before trying to tackle history.
Report This