The crippling effect of “woke” on historians
As a historian who likes to read (from real books that I can pick up and feel, not digital versions that make true understanding and absorption difficult), I am routinely reading at least two histories about America’s past at any one time.
For example, I previously had read two great biographies of T.E. Lawrence (of Lawrence of Arabia fame) and Cornelius Vanderbilt (who dominated the American transportation industry in the first half of the 1800s). More about each in future essays, as I think I will start reviewing these books as I finish them.
Believe it or not, this is actually an amazingly
accurate rendering of the first Thanksgiving
Today’s essay however is about two books I finished yesterday, both about two very different periods in American history. Both however had the exact same flaws, typical of the early 2000s when they were written, despite being very detailed and accurate efforts. The books:
- Mayflower: a story of courage, community, and war, by Nathaniel Philbrick
- Flyboys: a true story of courage, by James Bradley
The first was published in 2006, and was an attempt to describe in detail the story behind the settlement of Pilgrims in New England in first half century after they arrived in 1620.
The second was published in 2003, and was an attempt to tell the story of the defeat of Japan in World War II, achieved mostly because of the advent of the airplane in reshaping warfare. While ground troops took island after island in the Pacific, in the end it was the air war against Japan itself that eventually forced its surrender. Bradley focuses on telling us the story of the pilots and crews in that air war.
As I already noted, both books do excellent jobs detailing very accurately in vivid terms the events involved. For anyone who wishes to learn something about these significant events of our nation’s history, I recommend them highly.
However, that recommendation comes with one major caveat. In both cases, the authors were handicapped by certain modern academic paradigms that crippled their ability to see the larger context of events. Those paradigms demanded that both historians treat all the cultures involved as morally equivalent, and because of this both writers miss entirely the greater moral fundamentals that moved the Western side of both stories.
For example, let’s take Philbrick’s fascinating history of the Pilgrims.
Throughout the book he tries very hard to make us think there was no difference between the Indians and the Pilgrims. Both waged war. Both killed and enslaved their enemies. Both saw their enemies in racist terms. Both attempted to dominate and control the territory of New England.
Yet this is amazingly simplistic thinking that is largely false. It was quickly obvious to me that Philbrick was completely unaware of the influence of the Old and New Testaments on the Pilgrims. The Pilgrims were modern Protestants, their faith deeply grounded in the Old Testament and its family-oriented rules that make child-rearing and family life fundamental to everything a person does. They came to New England because they wanted a place to raise their children properly, according to the Ten Commandments and the basics of Judeo-Christian values. These ideas were much more nuanced than the tribal, non-literate, and war-fighting cultures of the various Indian tribes that surrounded them.
In fact, as I read Mayflower I soon wondered if Philbrick had ever himself even read the Bible. He seemed so unaware of its impact and influence on all the Pilgrims actions. For example, in the war that eventually broke out between the British settlers and the Indians, it was the Indians who started it, with the sole goal of committing a brutal racial genocide against the British. The response from the Pilgrims was to fight back, and in the end do what they could to avoid any genocide at all. For example, Philbrick couldn’t help noting that it was the alliance between the British and the Indians who had converted to Christianity that won the war.
As far as Philbrick was concerned, however, war is war, and because the Pilgrims fought back against an attempted genocide that had already massacred many of its women and children, they were no different than the Indians. His lack of the larger context makes his book less worthwhile, even though if you want to learn something about the Pilgrims’ first years in America the book is an excellent resource.
James Bradley’s book suffers from the same flaw. He tells the courageous and sometimes tragic story of these fighter pilots with sympathy and honor. At the same time, he repeatedly tries to argue there was no difference between Japan’s war actions and those of America. We both killed civilians. We both wages merciless war against our enemies. And on both sides, racial hate was a component fueling the conflict.
Morally we were both the same.
Once again however Bradley’s effort to push this simplistic idea of moral equivalency fails, because his intellectual honesty required him to document at length the barbarity of the Japanese (which included mass murder of POWs as well as cannibalism), things that were so far removed from America’s actions that the difference becomes quite evident. While the Japanese executed P.O.W.s (and sometimes even ate their bodies), the U.S. treated its P.O.W.s with mercy and care. Japan meanwhile had attacked without provocation its neighbors, both in China and the United States. The U.S. however were merely responding to that attack, a response quite similar to that which had faced the Pilgrims.
If anything, Bradley’s work inadvertently illustrated the astonishing cultural change that Japan underwent after World War II. Before, it was a violent, militaristic culture ruled by the samurai warrior mentality. After, it is largely Americanized, focused on family, capitalism, and good will to all. I even had trouble imagining how these two so very different cultures had come from the same island nation.
As a result, while trying desperately to make believe that there was no difference between these cultures, both books couldn’t help illustrating throughout how utterly different the cultures were, with the American/British side always coming off far better.
These historians however simply couldn’t see this, because the academic paradigms they lived under said they must not.
In the early 2000s DEI, critical race theory, and “wokism” were only beginning to make major inroads in academia. These ideas had become pervasive, but were not yet dominant. Thus, with both books, the authors were not so consumed with these idiotic ideologies that they were unable to report events accurately, as they happened. Thus, if a reader knows enough background about these events (as I do as a historian myself), you can look past the silly effort to assign moral equivalency and see the real story.
Later less educated readers however don’t have my advantages. They could very easily be taken in by these shallow arguments. And it appears this is exactly what has happened to academia since the 2000s. Today, all that academia teaches is the evil of America. They now see the Pilgrims only as “white supremacists” whose only goal was to kill “Native Americans,” those noble indigenous populations who understood nature totally and would never hurt a fly. They now see America in World War II as an evil conqueror, raining nuclear death on innocent Japanese civilians in an effort to conquer and destroy.
Thus, I doubt either of these books could be published today. Despite their flaws, they are too honest, an honesty that makes selling this leftist anti-American ideology untenable. Today, the goal is that anti-American ideology, and the facts be damned.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon or from any other book seller. If you want an autographed copy the price is $60 for the hardback and $45 for the paperback, plus $8 shipping for each. Go here for purchasing details. The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
Book reviews! Fantabulous! The more the merrier!
Speaking of historians, probably every reader of Behind The Black is familiar with the amazing Victor Davis Hanson.
I just discovered an amazing 1.5 hours of VDH from a very different podcast source. Jillian Michaels. VDH does an excellent job of educating Michaels. It is a a wonderful “spot on” review, summary of many different aspects of Western Civilization, and the insanity of the enemies of the West; both foreign and domestic enemies.
Much of the information is already familiar. But just like Robert Zimmerman, VDH has the vocabulary and phraseology to make it both educational and interesting.
I do not know Jillian Michaels from Adam. She does however openly admit her lack of knowledge, and lets VDH talk and talk.
Here is the link.
https://youtu.be/QEXG_SWVdKo?si=Usjrfh8x_KrzlKZp
You have to bring things home to where folks live. Charlemagne “tha God” talked reparations with Maher.
VDH might have replied how Versailles just made WWII Germany come back more intense…how intersectionality divides and allows no forgiveness–and how DEI devolves into the blood guilt of Mein Kampf no matter how noble it’s origins–how kids get along fine before their parents fill them with venom. Why I hope kids on Mars never learn Earth history except on their deathbeds before their cyberuploads or whatever.
That’s too heavy for most. When Maher said “but you didn’t help build America like slaves so why should you get a check?”—a clever retort may be the “you break-it you buy-it” defense Dubya floated to keep pouring money and lives into Iraq.
The Bell Curve was ultimately an attempt to undermine public school funding by saying that some will just naturally score better. Like Charlie Kirk talking about quotas in aviation as dumb as having half the NBA be pasty white guys. (I am surprised the Tuskegee Airmen weren’t mentioned in response).
That not only comes off badly, but a clever sophist might use The Bell Curve as evidence of epigenetic damage. There was an old woodcut showing a slavetrader licking an African slave. That was apparently to see if folks would sweat salt out and cause deaths at sea. The result was High Blood Pressure encoded into Blacks via unnatural selection that can be called a current problem and not just ancient history. So Dubya’s phrase can be repeated and an argument made that federal funding must be kept until that curve flattens.
“Just-so” stories always bite you in the end.
Had I sat across from Charlemagne–my question to him wouldn’t be about reparations at all.
“Have you ever dated a girl who was determined to make you pay for everything her previous nasty boyfriends did to her?”
My guess is that the universal answer to that question is *yes*
“And the more she nags you about something you didn’t do–does that make things better? Or does it make every engagement into middle east level strife?”
That would silence him., in that DEI is no different.
The goal of DEI was noble –but it backfired…where I saw a lot of white guys write Armstrong Williams wanting forgiveness for slavery. Contrition cannot be imposed from within…you cannot hear the still small voice of the Lord when a harpy is screaming in your ear and gets your back up.
Sandbox ethics. “Will what I do hurt another?”
Be naughty haughty or wordy.
Less VDH, more Dr. Phil.
Imposed from without I mean
Ronaldus Magnus,
Jillian Michaels is a long-time fitness guru/entrepreneur, one of the great beauties of the age and – worse luck for we hairy hetero types – a lesbian. She was also, until fairly recently, a more or less conventional show-biz lefty. She is now prominent in the growing ranks of the red-pilled former lefties and ex-wokesters who found the diktats of the Trans Reich a bridge too far. She is one of an increasing number of older-school LGBs and feminists who, correctly, see the recent “Trans Kids” social contagion as particularly targeting gay and lesbian boys and girls for sexual mutilations and for aggressively defending the alleged rights of sexually violent, pervy and/or grifty hetero men to invade female spaces under the rubric of being “Trans.”
A nit, but not really. It’s T.E. (Thomas Edward) Lawrence, not T.H.
Related:
FORCE, FEAR, CONTROL: DEATH SENTENCE!
Force, fear, control, that is the formula that is the most effective mode in any society that seeks absolute domination over the minds and actions of their citizens. This is what all Socialists, Communists and absolutists seek.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15301287/North-Korea-executes-big-shot-couple-arrogant-success-business-accusing-anti-republic.html
Now for sure this North Korean “Hermit Kingdom” example is extreme but in the big picture balance as far as leadership is concerned two individuals being killed for cause is a minimal price to pay. And the extreme, bloody and violent action serves to send a clear and unambiguous message promoting paranoia: Do as you are instructed, abandon any thought of individuality, abandon any thought of freedom and personal prosperity.
Killed in the public square by firing squad: “According to Daily NK, authorities accused them of violating the Rejection of Reactionary Thought and Culture Act. They were also alleged to have worked with an external organization to illegally move foreign currency and spread anti-state messages.”
“After their arrest in early August, they were jointly interrogated and given a death sentence in early September. Around 20 people connected to them were reportedly given sentences of exile or reeducation. ”
All and every government throughout history are about control, Monarchy, Dictatorship to Democracy. The American Constitution attempts to structure a reasonable minimum amount of government control in an individual’s life. And the North Korean’s represent the maximum amount of control over every thought and action of every citizen.
And believe it or not the extreme North Korean model or some form of it has been the more dominant model of control that has been exercised throughout most of human history by those who have acquired power.
The conclusion? Any Socialist, Communist, “progressive” or absolutist governance model that proposes to give to one at the cost of another because of some imagined or perceived inequity will in some way shape or form use force to accomplish what they “morally” and Subjectively deem just and fair.
But remember this: Government, all government is not in the truth and morality business, government, all government is in the power and control business.
How far is any government from utilizing the extremes of the North Korean model of force, fear and control? Keep watching the newly elected “progressive” / “Democrat Socialist oriented local governments in Seattle and New York City to find out.
The only thing that will counterbalance their tendency to use force in making their populations do as they Subjectively command?
The Objectively structured Constitution which preexists government. American government is a function of the Constitution and that is what limits anyone from exercising their Subjective will and force on the public. But that does not mean they will not try, they will, they have to.
Keep watching it is going to be a very interesting show to behold.
Are You Paying Attention Yet America? JGL 11/18/25
Douglas Frank: Typo fixed. Thanks.
The same is true in spades of Ken Burns’ Revolution documentary. ~80 percent is good, straight history. But that is marred by repeated genuflections to the DEI gods.
Craig Pirrong: I gave up on Burns forever after watching the first few episodes of his National Parks documentary. It was a cloying tribute to the wonders of government and government control, ignoring entirely the full history of the National Parks, which included shutting down any competition from free Americans by taking their land and homes to create the parks while also building tourist monopolies for itself.
Railroad titans had a part to play in that as well.
I want dams given the same protection to stop Gavin’s Gulag
Invoking “Judeo-Christian values” is the right’s form of woke. When you study Judaism, you quickly discover Judaism and Christianity have almost no shared values. They don’t even have the same list of Ten Commandments.
The phrase itself was invented by Christians in the mid-1800s to encourage Jews to convert. It was used primarily to describe Jews who had converted. It’s a nonsense phrase, like “non-binary” or using the word “gender”, which is a term concerning grammar and a noun’s standing in a sentence, as a substitute for the word “sex.”
Thus, kind of ironic that you invoke it to demonstrate the historical errors of woke historians.
It did not effect all such historians.
Read ‘Unbroken’.
Powerful. Never holds back describing Japanese savagery with POWs.
Not published in the 2000s is ‘With the Old Breed’. That will counter the perspective that it was all won in the air.
It is a worms eye view of war. Not for those of weak constitutions.
I understand the overall debate over Air vs Land vs Sea in the Pacific Theatre. Not getting into it, just saying this is another perspective.
A similar issue arises in almost every textbook written in the last 20 years, regardless of subject. There MUST be a reference somewhere in the text to ‘climate change’
__________
Jeff Wright
‘Why I hope kids on Mars never learn Earth history …’
The dumbest idea I have heard in a long time.
And no, DEI was never a good thing. It started off with bad intentions.
It demands full equity of outcome, an impossibility, and inclusion without constraint of reason, another impossibility.
‘Harrison Bergeron’ was not a Model Society to be envied.
Charlie Kirk’s argument regarding piloting quotas is irrelevant to the Tuskegee Airman. He never said or suggested that black men cannot fly planes!
I would explain his analogy, but I cannot tell if you are being deliberately obtuse, or if you are genuinely incapable of understanding it or a third possibility, if your self – prescribed blinders will not allow you to see the truth.
All: Note how Cardano attempts once again to follow that false modern academic paradigm that says all cultures are equal, and none are better than any others. This has become so ingrained in today’s intellectual circles that any suggestion otherwise always generates an outraged knee-jerk attempt to discredit the suggestion.
The Ten Commandments of the Bible are certainly interpreted differently by Christians and Jews, but the differences are actually relatively minor in the larger context. If anything, in writing Conscious Choice my research into the Pilgrims, Puritans, and the larger Protestant movement found them remarkably similar in lifestyle and moral behavior to my own Orthodox Jewish relatives and that community.
And that social framework is quite fundamentally different than most human cultures since the beginning of history, in its basic bottom up approach, starting with the individual and then moving to the family and children.
Cardano,
Regarding the 10 Commandment. The differences are minor, in the big picture. They cover the same stuff, with some numbering differences ( which is also true from RCC to Protestant). One group emphasizes different aspects, but that is true of all scripture reading, be it Torah or Bible. But taken in total, that which is forbidden, murder, theft, adultery, lying, and covet. That which we are commanded to worship, adore and honor is also the same. Some emphasis here may vary.
But both Jews and Christians are still bound by these. But I am neither Priest nor Rabbi.
I found the series that Prager and Peterson did on Exodus covered the 10 Commandments well.
The phrase Judeo-Christian also serves to delineate those who were part of The Covenant,
And the New Covenant, from those that are not, such as Muslims.
Interestingly, in my time in the Middle East, and reading news and other articles published there, I would see references to ‘Judeo-Islamic values’. I wish I had saved those articles to share as an example, but that was almost a lifetime ago.
What I have not ever seen is a reference to ‘Islamic-Chistian values’
Robert, I explicitly said that the two value systems were NOT the same.
The phrase “Judeo-Christian” attempts to imply a similarity that does not exist.
Would you be interested in using the phrase “Judeo-Islamic” or “Islamo-Christian”? Of course not. You do not see Judaism as being similar to Islam or Islam as being similar to Christianity. The two different religions certainly do not warrant a hyphen.
Yet you are fine with “Judeo-Christian”. The Jews, the Protestants and the Catholics each have a unique way of counting the Ten Commandments. That difference in counting demonstrates a difference in which values are emphasized in the respective religious traditions.
Jews don’t think of forgiveness the same way Christians do. They don’t consider that human life begins at the same moment that Christians do. Protestants believe their central authority is the Scriptures, Catholics hold that it is the Pope, Eastern Orthodox hold that it is the ecumenical councils, Jews have no absolute central authority, since the very term is, like Hindu or Protestant, a term that contains multitudes.
Judaism, like Islam, has no explicit theological condemnation of slavery.
For Jews, adultery can only be committed with a married woman. A married man can have sex with many single women, yet never be considered to have committed adultery.
You know this, yet you claim a false equivalence between Judaism and Christianity by using the phrase “Judeo-Christian”. Your phrasing is no different than the historians you excoriate.
Cardano: You are arguing about the trees, while I am noting the forest. That Judaism and Christianity have far more in common than Islam is self-evident, in numerous ways. Both draw their roots from the same Bible (especially the Protestants who renewed focus on the Old Testament), and the overall consequences of this produces similar cultures.
That there are differences of course exist. I don’t ignore them. I just note the large picture.
Robert, it is not at all self-evident that Judaism and Christianity have much in common. Very foundational concepts, such as when life begins, are not at all common. For Jews, adultery is when a woman sins against her husband. That’s it. There is no other definition. This puts an entirely different emphasis on family, another foundational social concept. For example, a Jewish woman, married to a non-Jew, who becomes pregnant is considered to have conceived by parthogenesis for theological purposes.
Judaism draws absolutely zero roots from the New Testament, so no, it is absolutely NOT the same Bible.
According to rabbinic Judaism, if two men walk through the desert, but one of the men has only enough water for his own survival, he is not morally obliged to share it with his companion. Only if both are rabbis are the two obliged to share, even if it means both will die. This is a RADICALLY (i.e., a foundational, at-root) different view from Christianity. Judaism, for all Jews who are not rabbis, is a very “looking out for Number One” theology. This is again, radically different from Christianity.
Ben-Gurion created an essentially socialist state. Jews are mostly leftists. Christians have historically always been much more friendly to princes and kings, monarchists at heart. Luther certainly was, the Eastern Orthodox have been accused of Caesero-Papism for a reason. Very few Christians raise their children in a kibbutz, but this is unremarkable in Israel.
YOU KNOW ALL THIS.
You know I’m not even close to listing all the differences, I’m just hitting the highlights on family and politics.
The phrase “Judeo-Christian” is a travesty to both Judaism and Christianity.
And, for the record, yes, I consider Christianity eminently superior to Judaism. As does the rest of the world, which is why there are billions of Christians but not even 20 million Jews. Market economics say that most people around the world view Judaism is an inferior way to live. That’s just an obvious fact of life.
Cardano
Minor quibble. Catholics do not believe the Pope is The Central Authority. That would be Jesus Christ. This is a common misunderstanding. For Catholics, the Pope is His appointed representative on Earth, as the successor to the Apostle Peter. I cannot speak to the other Orthodox groups, but suspect it is similar.
All of this is far from the original topic, above however.
Cardano: You are still arguing the trees while ignoring the forest. I am Jewish, with Orthodox relatives, but I find myself very much at home in a Christian world, of all the reasons I cite. All the differences you cite are valid, but they don’t change that basic larger picture.
And the world of Judeo-Christian bottom-up morality is far better than any other ideology yet conceived. Islam is top-down tribal. Communism is top-down government. In fact, all the others are always top-down, and that is always the source of the problem.
It is the difference between a Subjective perspective and an Objective perspective.
Islamic thinking is tribal and leads to Subjective thinking and perspective.
Judeo / Christian thinking leads to Objective thinking and perspective.
“The Old Testament is ultimately the story of God revealing Himself to the Jewish people in preparation for the coming of the Messiah. Christians know the Messiah to be Jesus Christ, as He is revealed in the New Testament.”
Why does Islam so easily ally itself with Socialism?
Because they are both based in a Subjective / tribal / authoritarian perspective.
The Judeo / Christian ethic promotes freedom for the individual.
The term Judeo / Christian is accurate because they are very similar and both fundamentally based in the Torah / Old Testament.
“The order of the books in the Tanak are slightly different than in the Old Testament. But the content within is the same. “
Jewish thinking can, indeed, be very tribal. Indeed, the very name “Jew” is – by definition – tribal. Israel is the nation, Judaism but one tribe of twelve. There are a not insubstantial number of Jews in Israel who habitually spit as they walk past a Christian church, or spit on the ground near obviously Christian pastors/tourists. There are Jews who are on record advocating the destruction of Europe/America in order to bring the Messiah.
While most people who claim the title Jew do not think this way, some do. There is no central authority which says these Jews are wrong, nor none to say they are right. Judaism has many strains. To say that “since Robert Zimmerman thinks this way, all good Jews also think this way” is to assume you know (1) what Judaism is and (2) what is involved with being a “good Jews” or an “orthodox Jew” or whatever.
In fact, no one knows these things because no central authority exists to authorize this for all Jews.
Heck, there isn’t even a single common definition of who is Jewish and who isn’t.
Cardano: Hm, do I begin to sense a more deep-rooted dislike of Jews from you than simply recognizing the religious interpretative differences?
In my whole life I have never once come across any Jew “who habitually spits” when in contact with Christians or their churches. And that includes spending a lot of time in Israel, at tourist sites filled with Evangelical tourists. If anything, people smiled and welcomed such tourists.
There are obviously always extremists in any group, so you aren’t wrong to note them. You however are entirely wrong in your apparent desire to assign those exceptions to the whole group. Thus, this is an absurd statement by you, and discredits you entirely.
And finally, you prove my point inadvertently when you write “no one knows these things because no central authority exists to authorize this for all Jews.” Its teachings are always from the bottom up, as they are in Protestant Christianity. There is not one central human authority running things. Each person must decide for him or her self.
That you wish to focus on the differences — to the point of almost hate — when the similarities are so profound says more about you than the religions themselves.
Folks might like to read (some of) what Alexis de Tocqueville had to say about the Puritans of New England, vis-à-vis the founding of republican democracy in America, here (X article).
Robert, laying the charge of “antisemitism” is the right-wing version of calling someone a racist or homophobe. It’s a slur laid when someone is losing a debate.
In this case, you are accusing major Israeli media outlets of antisemitism. As for teachings being “from the bottom up”, the Haredi are also well-known for being anti-Zionist, and even for meeting with Hamas and Hezbollah to encourage the destruction of Israel, as the ultra-orthodox consider Israel to be an abomination against the Torah. I’m sure you would consider that antisemitic. Which raises the question of what, exactly, antisemitism actually is.
Am I an antisemite when I agree with these Jews here against those Jews over there?
Or am I only an antisemite if I agree with those over there and disagree with these here?
Which one is the bottom up?
Here are some links, so that you may learn about your fellow religionists. You can also search X for videos in which some (we can’t say fringe, since no one knows which Judaism is the true Judaism) groups profess their reasons for wanting America/Europe destroyed. The groups aren’t large, but there’s no way to tell if they are wrong.
The Guardian (October 2023): Video of ultra-Orthodox Jews spitting beside Christian procession sparks outrage, condemned by Netanyahu and others.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/03/video-of-ultra-orthodox-jews-spitting-by-christians-in-jerusalem-sparks-outrage
Associated Press (October 2023): Details multiple incidents and arrests, noting rise in harassment of Christians.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-jews-spitting-christian-pilgrims-jerusalem-8888593827bc2a3820ba03fe5c38ee9a
The Times of Israel (October 2023): Condemnation of filmed spitting attacks, including by children; police arrests follow.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/condemnation-as-new-video-shows-haredi-men-boys-spitting-at-christians-in-jerusalem/
Haaretz (October 2023): Reports dozens of spitting incidents on Christians during Sukkot, calling it a growing phenomenon among extremists.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-02/ty-article/.premium/jews-behind-dozens-of-spitting-attacks-on-christian-worshippers-in-jerusalem/0000018a-f0c4-d428-a3ba-f0c75a490000
CNN (October 2023): Police arrest five after viral videos; priests report frequent occurrences.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/04/middleeast/jerusalem-christians-spitting-israel-intl/index.html
U.S. State Department Religious Freedom Report (excerpts from recent years): Notes continued reports of ultra-Orthodox Jews harassing or spitting on Christian clergy and pilgrims in Jerusalem.
https://www.state.gov/report/custom/7dccc5dc7b
Rossing Center Report (2023-2024, via Aid to the Church in Need, 2025 update): Documents “disturbing rise” in attacks on Christians in Israel/East Jerusalem, including spitting as a common form of harassment.
https://acninternational.org/attacks-on-christians-increasing-in-israel/
Cardano: I am well aware of all of these stories. It still represents the fringe of overall Jewish thought.
I repeat: Your desire to focus on this stuff to the exclusion of the greater picture says more about you than the point you are trying to make.
OK, so you’ve never come across a Jew who habitually spits, but you are “well-aware of these stories.”
You claim it “represents the fringe of overall Jewish thought.”
OK – so define on what authority you make that statement?
How is anyone to know:
1) who is actually Jewish and who is not
2) who is on the fringe and who is not
3) why you began by denying than admit you can confirm what I said
4) seem completely unable to deny the truth of anything I’ve said.
At no point have you said that I mis-characterized Jewish theology in regard to the beginning of life, the proper activities within a family (e.g., adultery, pregnancy of a Jewish mother/goy father), “Me-First” theology, or lack of ability to determine what is or is not Jewish/fringe.
On what authority do you make your statements, and how can we know that the authority you invoke is normative for all Jews/Judaism everywhere?
But I suspect you will answer by simply doubling down on slurs and name-calling.
Cardano: I repeat: You are focused on the trees, the minor details, and not the larger picture. And it is the larger picture that has set the tone for Western Civilization and especially British and American history for the past five hundred years.
hundred years.????
Robert, you are simply wrong. Western civilization was built on Christian values NOT Jewish values.
It was built on a Christian concept of the family, on a Christian concept of political structures, on a Christian concept of the appropriate role of slavery, on a Christian concept of the Bible, and on a Christian concept of forgiveness.
Judaism shares no commonalities with family law (e.g., adoption, inheritance), on politics, on slavery, on forgiveness or even on what constitutes the Bible. Judaism inherited its understanding of family from Christians, not vice versa (e.g., Judaism permits polygamy and some sects still practice it).
It isn’t the forest for the trees – it is two different forests.
Your attempt to draw equivalence is identical to that of the woke historians who try to draw equivalence between the Japanese and the West. The Jews are not equivalent to the WW II Japanese, but they are also not equivalent to the West.
Cardano,
So some white guy in the U.S. South marches around in a pointy hood and lights a cross on fire.. and everyone screams ‘ White Supremacy ‘, HATE HATE!
Some Jewish guy spits near a church, and you scream HATE HATE.
Left and Right are distractions in this context.
Same reaction.
Same behavior.
If you are going to tell me that no christian man or woman ever committed a similar offense, I will call you a liar.
“…laying the charge of “antisemitism” is the right-wing version of calling someone a racist or homophobe”
You mentioned anti-semitism preemptively, to deflect.
This is like a drunk guy I heard at a bar saying “Well, I’m not racist, BUT….”
This all started because you abhorred a phrase that compared the Jewish People and Christians.
This implies you feel slighted by the comparison.
Ethics or values can be shared across groups of people. And yes Jews and Christians share more values and ethics, on the whole, compared to Muslims, and most other faith groups.
They underpin Western Civilization. The only people that I have heard denying this are the people that are trying to tear down Western Civilization.
Cardano: You apparently know nothing about how Orthodox Jews live, which forms the very traditional way of Jewish life. It is identical to how the Pilgrims and Puritans lived, who by the way as Protestants went back to the full Bible and read it, both Old and New Testaments.
Regardless, it really appears to me that you have a deep animus to Jews and Judaism, and are doing all you can to make believe it had no part in creating Western Civilization. This of course is absurd, as the Old Testament is the book of the Jewish people, and it has been accepted as gospel by Christianity.
It appears to be the only reason you came here. To sum you up: “God forbid the Jews get any credit for building civilization!”
Dan Carlins Hardcore History (July, 2025)
Episode 33: Sledgehammer and Bigshot
https://youtu.be/sUZlAKAHsk4
1:31:38
“Henry Sledge, son of Eugene Sledge, writer of the classic war memoir “With the Old Breed at Peleliu and Okinawa” has released a book that includes tons of material left out of his dad’s memoir along with details about growing up as the son of “Sledgehammer.”
Robert, you apparently know nothing about Western Civilization.
It is impossible to seriously claim that the rejection of the New Testament is but a minor shrub in the vast forest which constitutes the West. It is absurd to claim that the New Testament, it’s acceptance or rejection, has no bearing on the resulting moral value set that you hold.
If you want to say that the New Testament is truly just a summary of the Old, then you are now a Christian, and you have no grounds upon which to reject the New Testament. Are you – as an Orthodox Jew – going to claim that you are a Christian and you embrace the New Testament as fully in conformance with the Old? SERIOUSLY?
You understand that the British Empire’s entire Protestant history revolves around the CHRISTIAN definition of adultery, right?
That by the Jewish definition, King Henry VIII did not commit adultery because he had sex with single women, while Christians, including Henry, insisted that he had to divorce his first wife and marry the second before he could have sex with her? That this entire segment of Western Civilization’s history revolved around CHRISTIAN definitions of marriage, adultery and family?
But no, you have said I am emphasizing the trees and missing the Big Picture ™
SERIOUSLY?
Sippin_bourbon, “If you are going to tell me that no christian man or woman ever committed a similar offense, I will call you a liar.” Sure, that’s an offense. GET IT? That’s an OFFENSE.
But many orthodox Jews in Israel have defended it as “an ancient Jewish custom.”
NOT AN OFFENSE.
For them, it is VIRTUOUS activity, a custom. The practice loosely ties to a Talmudic-era (c. 500 CE) blessing recited upon seeing sites of idolatry: “Blessed are You… who has shown forbearance to those who transgress His will” (from Berakhot 54b, often linked to ancient idols like Merkulis). Medieval texts (e.g., Tosafot commentaries) suggest some Jews quietly spat three times (or said “Pu Pu Pu” for protection against the evil eye) when passing churches in Europe, as a subtle expression of disdain amid oppression.
“Analysis ‘Barbaric Behavior’: Ancient Jewish Custom of Spitting Near Priests Was Nothing Like This”
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-05/ty-article/.premium/barbaric-behavior-ancient-jewish-custom-of-spitting-near-priests-was-nothing-like-this/0000018a-fc0e-df89-a7bb-fc6f7c4b0000
Now, you argue that the Jews who do this are “a fringe”.
Maybe they are.
Tell me how you know you are correct.
On what authority do you know this is true?
Which sect of Judaism is “true Judaism” and which sect is “false Judaism” or “fringe Judaism” and tell me on what authority you know this. How can you tell?
You can absolutely compare Jewish and Christian virtues.
So, would it be a slur for me to refer to the Judeo-Islamic practice of polygamy or acceptance of slavery?
Would that be a slur? If so, WHY?
Wayne,
Thank you for posting that.
I remember hearing about that, but have not gotten around to it.
Books like that always have back ground material that never makes it to the final print.
If you like history, you are probably familiar with Gordon Prange (At Dawn we Slept, Miracle at Midway, etc).
None of his books were books were published in his life time.
He was stuck in a research cycle. He had over 10,000 pages of notes, interviews, documents at the time of this death.
Everything was organized and published by co-workers. He was desperately afraid of leaving out some detail, no matter how small, that may have influenced a decision later.
Even then, his books are tomes.
sippin_bourbon: I just finished Miracle at Midway. Quite excellent.
“You can absolutely compare Jewish and Christian virtues.”
Yes, yes you can. I never said you could not.
And there are some base values/ethics that are shared.
You seem upset by the latter.
———————
No, the laws and rules of each are not precisely the same.
But the 10 Commandments, as a set of ideals, is accepted by both groups.
These are the basis of societal standards for behavior in Western Civilization.
It is a set of values and ethics, not hardened strict rules.
There are other things as well. Jewish tradition has courts, both civil and criminal.
You mentioned that lack of emphasis on forgiveness but there is emphasis on repentance (a concept you failed to mention, which is huge for Christianity).
There is a belief in the preservation of life.
Life Liberty and Property were major themes of John Locke, who cited Hebrew scripture more than any other.
John Adams stated that he believed that Jews were responsible for civilizing men than any other nation.
The laws and rules of each are not precisely the same, no one claimed they were.
Yet this is where you point to find difference.
Mr Z is correct with the Forest and Trees analogy.
———————–
You want to point to fringe behavior, and the handful of Rabbis that want to accept Polygamy, as proof of difference.
Well, here you go. Evangelical Christians doing the same:
https://www.deseret.com/2008/2/28/20073463/idaho-evangelical-christian-polygamists-use-internet-to-meet-potential-spouses/
Both Fringe.
Most LDS follow the ban on it.
I would wager there are more fundamentalist LDS in polygamous marriage then Jews.
(I would not wager a lot, as I am not a betting man, by nature).
Fringe instances of spitting? Yes.
Why? Because you must scour the interwebs to find instances of it. Otherwise, no one talks about it, reports it, etc.
Someone defended it by claiming it is tradition? So does the KKK in their pointy little hats.
Who cares.
I can ignore both patterns of bad behavior, equally.
———————–
Last, I would ask you this:
A Jewish man, walking in a country in the middle east spits at a church or a priest.
What does Christ tell us to do?
Hint: Rant about it on the internet is not the answer.
Matt 5:39.
This verse of oft abused, but in this case is applies directly.
There is also Acts 5:41
But if that is too much, try 1PET 4:14.
I will pray for you, my friend.
Mr Z
(If this appears twice, apologies).
I am reading Six Frigates, by Ian Toll. (Early US Navy)
He also has a trilogy of the US Navy in the Pacific that I will read next.
So far so good. Will let you know.
In Six Frigates, he mentions but does not dwell on Maryland and Delaware merchantmen being fitted out to transport slaves.
It is given in the context of a hypocrisy, which is honest.
It is not presented to justify the Sultans’ piracy and extortion as an acceptable enterprise.
sippin_bourbon
You seem to think that religion is subject to democratic vote – your implicit assumption is the majority rules and the majority defines what constitutes any particular religion. If that is true, then who gets a vote? There are many more Muslims than Jews, and pretty much all the Muslims agree that Judaism is not a real religion, it’s just a twisted version of Islam. Given that neither you nor Robert can define who is Jewish, on what grounds do you deny the Muslim attestation? Sure, the Muslims are genocidal animals, but the Jews fought on the side of the Muslims during the Crusades.
According to Robert, who says Jewish values formed Western civilization, the Crusades were therefore implicitly a Jewish movement.
Repentance is, indeed, huge for Christianity. But a Christian can repent of a sin, like murder, and be forgiven by God. According to Jewish theology, repentance can only be forgiven by the one against whom you sinned, so even God cannot forgive murder. Murder cannot be forgiven because the victim isn’t available to proffer forgiveness. For rabbinic Judaism, repentance is not necessary to enter the World to Come – simply being Jewish, no matter how sinful or guilty you may be – is enough to enter heaven.
I readily grant that Judaism was as formative on Western Civilization as Islam was, and for substantially the same reasons.
But I’m pretty sure Robert wants to pretend Judaism and Christianity worked hand-in-hand to create western Civilization, which is certainly not the case.
Robert is a woke historian from the Right, who doesn’t compare the similar (no matter how sparse) atrocities between Japan and America, as the woke Leftists do, but rather attempts to conflate whatever he sees as virtuous in Judaism with what he sees as virtuous in Christianity. But Jews and Christians don’t see the same things as virtuous.
So, Robert claims that rejecting the New Testament is a minor thing, not really relevant to the building of the West.
That is certainly a minority viewpoint.
It is also certainly not historically or spiritually different from spitting at a Christian church as you pass by.
I most certainly do not think it is a democracy.
But I also do not let fringe, extreme behavior define the whole.
On the other stuff..
I think we will just disagree.
But either way, praying for you.
sippin-bourbon, you are obviously not being honest. You have never told me how you have determined that spitting at Christians and Christian churches is fringe behaviour. If it isn’t based on “majority of Jews don’t do it”, then what is it based on?
You don’t know which sect of Judaism is True Judaism ™, nor which sect is false.
Perhaps the ones who spit are the True Jews (again, tm) while all the rabbinic Jews who oppose it are not really Jews at all?
You don’t know.
Why don’t we both just agree that you and Robert are wrong?
That’s certainly as easy, and certainly more honest than your mealy-mouthed decision to be neither hot nor cold. Aren’t you supposed to let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no? You earlier asked that I forgive others in the spirit of Christ – but noticed that this was an invocation of a Christian value which is foreign to Judaism. Odd for a man espousing your position (perhaps you’re being adulterous with your own views).
Woke leftism is abhorrent, but so is the dishonesty of Woke Rightism.
Modern post-Temple Judaism (a version Christ never espoused) has as much in common with Christianity as Islam – not much.
Cardano: In doing a search of BtB’s comments, I discovered you previously commented using your name, Steve Kellmeyer. I do not like it when people change their name or nickname. Either one or the other, but not both.
Second, it appears that when you commented previously, you also got very hostile to any disagreement, accusing anyone who disagreed with you as ignorant or wrong or worse. Like in this thread, you started out saying things that were interesting and worth reading, but if anyone disagreed you got angry and went off the deep end.
Finally, I don’t like your overall hostility to Judaism, bordering now almost on hate. Sorry if you don’t like what I am saying, but that is how you are appearing. You certainly are not exhibiting any good will at all.
Overall, I am torn. I think you can contribute to the discussion here, but not if you end up in these dark places each time. Also, you changed your nickname, something that is often done to hide a person’s overall position on the issues.
I am going to think about this, but if I find you continuing on this path I might find myself forced to ban you. I don’t want to, but if I do, it will be because of your actions.
“Unauthorized History of the Pacific War Podcast”
with: Seth Paridon, Bill Toti and Jon Parshall.
https://www.youtube.com/@UnauthorizedHistoryPacificWar/videos
“Robert, you are simply wrong. Western civilization was built on Christian values NOT Jewish values.”
Which came first, the Jews or the Christians?
The Jews precede the Christians.
Is the Christian perspective a function of the Jewish perspective?
Absolutely, they are inextricably connected.
So how can the statement: “Western civilization was built on Christian values NOT Jewish values.” be true?
It cannot be true.
The Jewish / Hebrew thought process and philosophy thread runs through the Christian philosophy.
The one is closely related to the other, they are different but very similar in their foundation.
Q: Why is it so essential that this bright line be drawn between the two for you Cardano?
Robert, can you point to some statement I made that was a mis-statement of fact?
It’s your blog, you do what you want. Woke likes to ban speech, so I won’t be surprised if you choose that.
Cotour, the TEMPLE Jews came first, but the POST-TEMPLE Jews came after. Post-Temple Judaism bears almost no resemblance to Temple Judaism. Christ and the early Christians were all Temple Jews. The Christian perspective is an outgrowth of the Temple Judaism perspective, but it isn’t the same, nor is the Christian perspective even acceptable to either version of Judaism, because the earliest Christians were KICKED OUT of every synagogue they attempted to enter and teach in. That’s why the word “Christian” was invented – to distinguish the UNACCEPTABLE Christian viewpoint from the Jewish viewpoint.
From the Seder to the rabbi-synagogue-Talmud system, post-Temple Judaism is simply not the same as Temple Judaism. And neither is coterminous, or even similar to, Christianity.
Cardano,
Where did Christ say forgive only those that agree with you, or share your values, ethics or morals?
True Judaism vs false Judaism, point to an authority.
These are red herrings.
I think you are more upset that I will not debate you only on your set terms. But your terms are far too narrow minded. And so I will not.
Not sure if it is true, but you do come across as very angry.
Why do I not just agree with you? Well then, my friend, we would both be wrong.
Coutour, one further point: For most of the past two millennia, both the original Temple Jews and the current crop of various post-Temple Jewish viewpoints considered the Christian viewpoint so heretical that Jews are, to this day, not permitted to pray in Christian churches (although they are permitted to pray in mosques).
Steve Kellmeyer: You really do come off as very angry, as sippin_bourbon notes. You also seem very obsessed with discrediting all Judaism, in ways that really make no sense unless we come to conclusions that are very ugly.
I don’t like banning, but I find your increasingly angry and hateful tone quite disturbing and unhealthy for a rational human being. That you don’t see it and appear willing to magnify it (including using CAPS to shout at us) is even more troubling.
At some point, if you don’t moderate the tone of your comments, you will find yourself banned. Right now you are not contributing anything but anger and hate, wrapped up in arguments that are cherry-picked and incoherent.
sippin_bourbon
The point of contention here is whether there is such a thing as “Judeo-Christian values” or “morality”.
When Christians were TRYING VERY HARD to be accepted by the Temple and post-Temple communities, both groups tended to reject the Jews who held such radical theological-moral views. The idea that a man can forgive sins (a power Jesus gave to the 12 in the Upper Room), for instance, was simply anathema to the Jewish understanding of forgiveness. The Jews who held to Jesus’ moral and theological view of the universe were so deeply condemned as heretics that they were even given a distinguishing name: Christians.
As I pointed out to Coutour, even Muslims are not considered as heretical as Christians. For instance, Maimonedes saw zero problem with Jews praying in a mosque, but absolutely forbad Jews from praying in a Christian church. In pretty much every war Christianity fought against Islam, when given the choice between supporting the Muslims and supporting the Christians, post-Temple Jewish communities (there were, of course, no other kind) always sided with the Muslims against the Christians.
The term “Judeo-Christian” was invented by Christians in the 1800s to encourage Jewish conversion and was applied primarily to Jewish converts to Christianity.
Now, in the 21st-century, everyone is trying to change the definition and pretend the phrase points to some common, shared, hand-in-hand heritage of Jews and Christians building Western civilization together in the post-Temple era. It is very much like Obama’s bromide that “Muslims fought in our (America’s) wars!”. Well, Obama was right. Muslims DID fight in our wars. They just never fought on our side.
This is not a commentary on the Muslims today who reject the violence of orthodox Islam (such as the Ahmadiyya Muslims), but it should be recognized that the Muslims who reject violence are considered heretics by orthodox Muslims. Are there pro-life Jews who support the idea of a human being with rights existing from the moment of conception? Sure. But they are the exception, not the rule. It is incontrovertibly true that for most of Judeo-Christian history, there has been no such thing as Judeo-Christian values or morality. Appeals to this concept in a historical context are anachronistic at best, a pure lie at worst.
And still I think it is generally accepted that America and its Constitution and the men that constructed it is and are an extension of the Judeo / Christian ethic.
I think you are slicing things kind of thin here.
Why are you so angry about this issue?
I can tell you and state with certainty that there is a great distinction between the Judeo / Christian ethic and the Islamic ethic.
Now there is a distinction.
The Bible which structures both Judeo and Christian thinking which is about the light and the Koran which from what I can detect is primarily a dark military document and a guide to life are without doubt two different perspectives.
And the one is IMO not compatible with the other and poses a fundamental insurgent threat to Western civilization. Western civilization being a result of Judeo / Christian thinking and perspective.
Who is this, Guy?
——————————-
Akira the Don / Jordan Peterson
Tarantula’s 🕷
https://youtu.be/7zIkUkRLJAM?t=87
(7:59)
“When they call themselves the Good and the Just, do not forget that they would be Pharisees… if only they had – power!”
Cardano, you might want to reflect on why there are many times more Christians than Jews. It’s largely because Judaism is not and has not been a proselytizing faith during most of its recorded history, while Christianity most certainly is. And at quite a few times and places in its history, it’s been very aggressively so. The Christianization of Central and South America, home to nearly 700 million Christians, was muscularly backed up by fire and sword (or the threat of them), and that was hardly unique to Spain and Portugal. Christianity has also often done its level best to either suppress Judaism, or at times drive the Jews out, or at some other times, simply slaughter them. Gee, I wonder why there might be so many more Christians? One might as well wonder why there are so many more Muslims, too, another religion with a self-professed duty to proselytize. Is it because of its natural superiority to Judaism? Yeah, no. That doesn’t pass the laugh test, either.
Coutour – I understand that it is hard to accept evidence you have never considered. I was once a firm believer in Judeo-Christian morality and values, but discussions with a philosophy instructor who was Jewish played a large part in changing my mind.
He pointed out to me on numerous occasions that Judaism and Islam are much more closely aligned than Judaism and Christianity were.
When you assert Judaism and Christianity are closer than Judaism and Islam, you are implicitly saying Maimonedes is wrong.
That’s a very bold position for a Christian to take about one of the most prominent Jewish theologians of the Post-Temple period. If Rambam says X is the proper Jewish view, I would want to find a Jewish theologian of similar stature to support me before I contradicted him. I sure wouldn’t try to assert that his view of Judaism is wrong based on my own take.
Larry, sure, that’s the claim made today to explain the low numbers, but it was not always so.
During the first century AD, the Roman Empire was 10-20% Jewish. This was accomplished through active proselytization, especially during the Second Temple period. Avot d’Rebbi Natan portrays his co-religionists converting idol-worshipers, with statements like “Whoever converts an idol-worshiper is as if he created him.” The Talmud (Pesachim 87b) suggests that the exile of the Israelites was partly to facilitate adding converts from among the nations. Additionally, the Torah is presented in some rabbinic views as a universal blueprint for creation, offered to all nations (who rejected it) before being given to Israel, and revealed in the desert to avoid exclusive claims by any one group. Philo of Alexandria actively encouraged Gentiles to observe the Torah, viewing it as wisdom for all nations.
There was even forced conversion. Forced proselytism occurred under the Hasmonean (Maccabean) dynasty in the 2nd century BCE. John Hyrcanus, a high priest and ruler, compelled the Idumeans (Edomites) to convert to Judaism by the sword, as recorded by the historian Josephus.
Robert – I honestly haven’t figured out where the “angry” charge comes from.
Can you quote back to me the passage which betrays my anger?
I can’t see it.
Coutour – I understand that it is hard to accept evidence you have never considered. I was once a firm believer in Judeo-Christian morality and values, but discussions with a philosophy instructor who was Jewish played a large part in changing my mind.
He pointed out to me on numerous occasions that Judaism and Islam are much more closely aligned than Judaism and Christianity were.
When you assert Judaism and Christianity are closer than Judaism and Islam, you are implicitly saying Maimonedes is wrong.
That’s a very bold position for a Christian to take about one of the most prominent Jewish theologians of the Post-Temple period. If Rambam says X is the proper Jewish view, I would want to find a Jewish theologian of similar stature to support me before I contradicted him. I sure wouldn’t try to assert that his view of Judaism is wrong based on my own take.
Coutour,
Rambam says you are wrong.
Rambam’s position is that Judaism is closer to Islam than it is to Christianity.
When it comes to Jewish theology, neither one of us has sufficient stature to challenge him on what the post-Temple Jewish viewpoint is. Indeed, even Robert doesn’t have statures to make that challenge, as I think he would readily agree.
I do not base my opinions on such things related to some individual theologians’ absolute OPINION.
You / theologians could argue from today till the sun engulfs the earth about which religion is closer to which and which is closer to the true GOD.
What I do generally understand is that the Founders of America saw themselves for the most part as being based in the Judeo / Christian / Biblical based ethos. One third of the signers of the Constitution were Masons and believed in G.A.T.U. (The great architect of the universe).
And those Founders despised the Pope and the Catholic church and rejected its proposed authority over them.
So where does that leave this discussion? A theologian told you what you should think based on their historical interpretation regarding Christianity which precedes Islam by I think about 600 years or so. And Judaism which precedes Christianity by another 3000 years (?).
One (Judaism / Yahweh) precedes the other (Christianity / Jesus) and then they both precede (Islam / Muhammad)
Which one is most like the other? IMO, and I am not a theologian, Christianity is closer and more of a function of Judaism.
These are my observations and comments on the function of religion, any religion which are ALL human constructs attempting to formulate and understand what this is all about that we find ourselves immersed in. Theologians have their Subjective perspectives that they serve. (Religion just like politics, both are about social control for the most part is / are a treacherous activity)
“Spirituality or a belief in a God or a creator is an internal personal and pristine condition that no one other than the individual can knowingly corrupt. And whether that spirituality is based in a belief in a God or a creator or a belief in nature and the expanse of the overarching eternal universe, you personally internally recognize that there is something bigger and more than you. It is your personal conclusion about what your existence is in some way shape or form based on or influenced by and guides your spiritual life.
Any formalized construct of man (and woman) and any power derived thereof, which employs an authority and hierarchy, which at its core essentially operates in some respects like a corporation, or a business, or a political party, because it is a construct of man (or woman) all have the potential to be corrupt and the power derived abused. This is true of all such things that are a construct of man (or woman). JGL”
There is more here: https://www.sigma3ioc.com/post/god-spirituality-v-politics-law-and-justice-commerce-religion-1
To all,
I am now closing this theological discussion. Much of it is completely off topic for this post, based on obscure things that no one who reads my blog care about. More important, much of what our esteemed Steve Kellmeyer has spouted is blather, as far as I am concerned. He will disagree, which is his right, but my opinion is my right as well.
Anyone who tries to continue this particular discussion will find their comments deleted.
However, if people wish to go back to discussing my original post, and how DEI and Marxism has destroyed modern histories, that would be fine with me.
Episode 2 went right off the cliff. It felt like a 1619 Seminar more than a Revolutionary War documentary. How many more times do you want to remind us that George Washington owned slaves, Ken?
It is a shame; while Ken Burns has always been quite liberal, his early work usually kept the “anti-racism” agenda within bounds. But he’s gone with the flow. No way he’d make THE CIVIL WAR with all that screentime for someone like Shelby Foote again if he were doing it today.
Wow, I was looking forward to this documentary. Now I’m glad I haven’t had a chance to see it.
Richard M
What a difference success makes.
When he made The Civil War series, He has some documentaries under his belt, but nothing really the get his name out there.
That one did it. He was famous. Now he has all kinds of money and success, and he has chosen to stray from what got him started.
He could not have expressed the bias he did for the Civil War, because it would have been soundly trounced and rejected, as this documentary is today.
This is a choice, by him, I think. He does not feel constrained, and so will let his bias into the product.
This also happens with popular fictional TV shows. Especially in the sci fi realms. They hook you with a season or two of really good story, and then in the second or third season, turn left. The re-imagined BSG did this. It was sad.
Sippin_bourbon,
All true, but it’s also a question of where the culture, and especially the elite culture, was at each point in time. Burns began production on THE CIVIL WAR all the way back in 1986, with subsequent additional shoots and editing through 1989, which is right there in Reagan’s Morning In America, before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Critical Race Theory had hardly begun as an academic burp in the halls of Harvard Law; the 20th century consensus on the Civil War was still intact, and Burns kept within that, with about as much in the way of nods to the post-civil rights era as you’d expect he could get away with and still secure his funding.
But as the Overton Window swung massively to the woke left in the 21st century, Burns swung with it, because that’s what was happening to the circles he moved in, and maybe more to the point, the circles from which he secured his funding. Maybe that’s who he always was deep down, but myabe he was just a socially malleable boomer progressive.
I think THE CIVIL WAR is still a pretty good Civil War documentary, and the ample time given to Foote is enough all by itself to forgive its modest sins and endless winsome fiddles. I don’t think any of his subsequent documentaries reach those heights. His BASEBALL documentary might be close if it were just retitled, BASEBALL EAST OF THE HUDSON RIVER.
“I think THE CIVIL WAR is still a pretty good Civil War documentary”
John Chancellor, David McCullough and David Rubenstein had about the same voice–Roddy McDowell and Dereck Jacobi as well.
As a kid, I thought Tony Orlando, Robert Goulet and Wayne Newton were the same person.
There were two Engleberts Humperdinck…the first a children’s author…
Sociology news
https://phys.org/news/2025-11-black-student-unions-pressure-students.html
More
https://www.foxnews.com/media/death-american-history-professors-warn-students-even-teachers-show-shocking-ignorance-founding-docs