Young liberals

The other day I was taking a break and decided to read a few blogs. This is one of my favorite relaxation techniques...it lets me get a look at what some other people think is important and how they react to things.
Well, lo and behold I come across a site labeled something like "Young Liberals" or something similar. Started reading it a little bit, and that proved to not be relaxing.
2 guys co-wrote a column in which they essentially blamed every ill of the U.S. on conservatives. Somewhere between 8 and 11 people had replied, most of them cheering this "well-written and informative" column on.
Now, one reason I hate labels of these nature is their inherent inaccuray. "Liberal"...that actually defines NOTHING. Perhaps a mind set...but there are disagreements within that mind set, just as Conservative defines nothing...perhaps a mindset, although there are disagreements within that mindset.
Now, as you may or may not know I am a history major. This feeds well with the years upon years of recreational history study I have done. As such I have read all sorts of things. I have read arguments on how Hitler was not as bad as history has judged him, on how Ivan the Terrible was the greatest ruler of Russia ever...and how he was the worst...I have read how Communism under Stalin was so much kinder than capitalism under the various Presidents who came and went during that time...in other words, I have read a lot of ridiculous stuff.
Most of the ridiculous is written when accuracy is given up at the expense of making a point. Take Communism for instance. People with a bent to criticize the evils of capitalism...and make no mistake, particularly in the era of social Darwinism, there were some murderous excesses...the Shirtwaist Company fire comes to mind...those people hold Communism up under Stalin. Of course, to do this they have to ignore the murderous rampages, the party cleansings, the starvation and deprivation that went on...but in their mind the ends justifies the means.
As a self-described independant, I strive for neither liberalism nor conservatism. No -ism seems to fit me. I walk my own path. But I strive hard to be ACCURATE. Obviously there are times...I would even argue it is most if not all the time...when I have a point to make of my own. However, I strive to be accurate. I try not to ignore basic truths in pursuit of those points. I find that if I twist truth to make a point it has a reverse effect.
This is one reason travesties like Farenheit 911 and Bush's Brain tend to move me away from my centrist position towards support of the very people those movies were attacking. The manipulation of fact is so irritating it makes me think the authors of those statements are hiding something. And anyone hiding something...they scare me. They can do a lot of harm.
The authors of Young Liberals (or whatever the blog title actually was...it has been a couple days and I honestly don't remember. Believe it or not, that frustrates me. I would vastly prefer to have a link available so you could look for yourself....that is always best. Relying on one person for your information is flawed.) either did not do their research or else they are hiding something. Their manipulation of truth and history was sad indeed.
Numerous accusations were made under their post titled "Conservatism is Tyranny", including that Bible thumping Christians were the primary driving force trying to save slave holding. I countered with John Brown and the undisputable, undeniable truth it was the "Bible thumping" societies driving ALL the reform movements of the 19th century...including anti-slavery.
Now, I also try to admit my errors...and I made one in my reply to them. I had the 3/5ths Compromise of The Great Compromiser in mind and forgot about the 1787 version...they were actually correct about the 3/5ths compromise being part of the time period of the Founding Fathers, even if they were so far off on the motivations that I am still disturbed.
This, however, hearkens back to a larger problem. For years the so-called "Conservatives" have been complaining about "Revisionist history"...that is, a history that takes the establishes myths of U.S. culture and points out flaws in them. One good example of this would be Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, the Dee Brown epic that presents a Native American-centric view of history. That book, which I highly recommend, does ignore some wrongs done by Native Americans, but it nevertheless remains ACCURATE in presentation...something that much revisionist history fails to do.
This was the first time I had heard the "Conservative" side accused of revisionist history. I found that claim particularly entertaining. And it got me to thinking.
So between some school projects today I did some research. Obviously, a little bit of Internet research hardly qualifies as anything thorough or life-changing, but from what I have seen, even the major reputable historians of the day, if there is "revision" in the meaning of blatantly manipulating history to say something it is not saying (such as Remini's attempt to justify Jackson's attitude towards the Cherokees as being in their best interests, for example...the attitude that led to thousands of deaths, Removal, and their loss of standing as people and as a People) is being done it is certainly not by the conservatives.
So in short, be careful what you read. Anytime you read a claim that appeals to history, whether it is here or somewhere else, figure out why the person is writing, what they are trying to prove, what they might have as an agenda, and take that into account. Don't trust people who make sweeping claims trying to change your idea of what happened. Remember, keeping an open mind does not mean agreeing with everything you hear. And that point is the best point I can make. Do the work, do the research, and decide based on genuine fact after considering various angles because if not you will get swept into something you may not understand as you fall to the rhetoric of the conservatives or liberals. Ignore them both and seek truth.