Douglas Murray, author of “War on the West,” has launched a new videocast series entitled, Uncancelled History. In Episode 1, he interviews Jonathan Horn, author of “The Man Who Would Not Be Washington” to uncancel Robert E. Lee.
Whether you revere Lee or revile him, it’s a great interview. Murray and Horn place Lee in the context of his times. I can hardly wait for Murray to uncancel Thomas Jefferson.
— JAB
(comments below)
(comments below)
No point in “uncancelling” that which shouldn’t have been in the first place.
In time the current political forces that condemn historical icons will pass on and Robert E Lee and Thomas Jefferson will be restored as great Americans.
Jefferson is still great. Lee never was.
We all are entitled to our own opinions; just not our own facts. Historians don’t agree with you; neither did President Eisenhower . Have you ever read the letter he wrote about Lee?
Historian do agree with me. The Lost Cause is finally dying a deserved death. And his star, which should never have been illuminated, is flickering out. He was a tactical genius, and a strategic failure fighting for the worst cause imaginable. Only among the true believers does he hold any position of preeminence.
You cleverly conflate the “lost cause” with the man. And no, historians do not all agree with you. Once again, have you read what President Eisenhower wrote about the man. If you like, I’ll be glad to list historians who do not agree with you. And for the record, I am not a true believer. Slavery was an abomination but it needs to be viewed in the context of it being a global issue that only slowly was being abolished.
Bill – do you have a view with respect to UDC, Jim Crow and Lee?
I have lots of views but not on vague questions.
Okay. Specifically with regard to the UDC putting up monuments and memorials associated with the Lost Cause that included Lee?
For me, it’s not slavery per se, never was, but what was done AFTER the civil war with regard to veneration and association of the Confederacy and it’s leaders including Lee to oppress blacks who had been freed from slavery.
Those monuments were the central defining element for Jim Crow and White Supremacy that continued for decades and targeted black folks for generations.
Lee wanted no part of the veneration much less that he be associated with the Lost Cause, Jim Crow and White Supremacy.
Most agree that Lee would not have wanted a statue of him and there is an ongoing debate whether the one on Monument Avenue was to honor and promote the Lost Cause. The others that came much later were certainly tied to Jim Crow and the Lost Cause. White Supremacy is contrary to our founding principles and its continued presence shows that the “arc of justice” is indeed long and still has a long way to go.
So you’d … don’t want to put words in your mouth .. would not support monuments to Lee and others that were shown to be actually tied to Jim Crow, et al?
Do you consider the United Daughters of the Confederacy to be supporters of the Lost Cause and statues they put up to be essentially part of their Lost Cause movement?
Do you support taking down statues that are clearly associated with UDC and the Lost Cause?
I appreciate your response.
I tried to explain where I am and why and would be glad to answer more questions you might have as to my position.
Quit trying to be a lawyer. My answer speaks for itself.
we are apparently still far apart and I cannot understand why given your prior response – which I felt is similar to my view – as far as it went. It apparently diverges.
So maybe at a learning moment for me…
Mr. O’Keefe displays some confusing, contradictory opinions that might be resolved by looking inward.
Historical context? The Lost Cause is the historical context. The only reason why Lee is lionized to this day is because of the Lost Cause. He was stripped of his citizenship as a traitor, which wasn’t restored until the 1970s. And you seem to be confused about the state of slavery in the world in the 1860s. The U.S. was one of the last Western nations to abolish it, and only after a hugely destructive war. If you agree that it was an abomination, you have an odd way of displaying it by lionizing a man who sought to destroy the United States to preserve the institution. Have a nice Sunday.
Viewing Lee as I do does not mean lionizing him. You are distorting my comments to push your narrative. I referred to the historical context of slavery globally; not just in Western nations. Slavery was even practiced by the American Indians at the time slavery was introduced her by European settlers.
Where is your source that demonstrates that Lee sought to destroy the United States? I also notice that you have avoided President Eisenhower’s respect and admiration for Lee. Curious.
Lee’s application for restoration of his citizenship was filed in 1865 but was lost and not discovered until 1970.
As I said earlier, we are all entitled to our own options; just not our own facts.
You literally called him a “great American.” Yet you’re now denying that you “lionize” him. It’s clear you really haven’t thought this out–you’re all over the map. And I don’t care what Eisenhower said about Lee. It’s irrelevant. Lee was not pardoned, and he was stripped of his citizenship. His request was ignored by William Seward. He was deemed a traitor to America, the nation he tried to destroy to maintain chattel slavery. Facts indeed.
you get more frantic the more you post. You clearly do not know what you are talking about and I have no interest in furthering this exchange. Enjoy your day.
Frantic? I’m literally relaxing with a beer in my hand and watching soccer:-). Like I said, look within to unscrew your contradictory opinions. It’ll pay dividends, even late in life.
Don’t concern yourself me with me. Enjoy your beer and mental gymnastics to create contradictions out of whole cloth.
Within, Mr. O’Keefe. Focus on an examined life.
As great a soldier as that age produced, and no more flawed a human being than many other great generals. As I always note, he fought hard against being cast in marble as the symbol of a failed cause. A big point in his favor.
“As great a soldier as that age produced, and no more flawed a human being than many other great generals”
Benedict Arnold was also a great soldier…
One of the absolute best. But a traitor and a fool in the end.
Fool? Which qualifies him for beatification by the bishops of BR.
And he belongs in the history accounts.
As does RE Lee. Right next to him…
So the utter destruction of his army is what a great soldier achieves? His loss was total, his cause was immoral, his reasoning deeply flawed, his inaction to stop the terror in Lexington during Reconstruction unforgiviable. But let’s celebrate him anyway, I guess….?
Hey! FFV baby. His name was Lee, he was purest of pure white, and a native Virginian. All solid qualifications to be venerated, nay worshipped, at BR.
Hey! FFV baby. His name was Lee, he was purest of pure white, and a native Virginian. All solid qualifications to be venerated, nay worshipped, at BR.
Even Lee recognized that he had led thousands of people to their death for something he himself said was wrong and he wanted no veneration of him for it.
All generals have flaws.
We’re talking not about flaws but why he was a General fighting for what cause.
and he lost… another big point in his favor. Now we have marble manifestations of The Lost Cause against which to rally.
This should keep Mr. Purdy busy for a while. Plan to fly General Lee’s HQ flag today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBfrJHs56cA
By that, cop cars should be called General Grants… considering that Dodge was always running from them.
You post that stuff so much I think might have a condition. You should see somebody.
See somebody? I am. Heading to the meeting house. You should tag along. Usually something decent to eat after all the singing praying and preaching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-nE7M68xAs
The whole idea of “cancelling” is pretty bogus. Not one word or book has been removed/destroyed…. i.e. “cancelled”.
The history of Robert E. Lee has never been so wide and deep.
This was never about history but really about the physical veneration of historical figures placed in public spaces and imposed on those who Lee is not a hero or a person to venerate. This has been done for generations in spite of how they feel. Repugnant and detestable imposition of symbols on others who do not venerate them.
So who would do such a thing and impose such unwanted symbols?
Jim Crow – and those who support white supremacy.
Not history.
“Murray is known for his association with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. In March 2018, Orbán posted a photo on his official Facebook account of himself reading the Hungarian-language edition of The Strange Death of Europe.[142][143] Murray has disputed the claim that Hungary is experiencing significant democratic backsliding under Orbán, and has called Freedom House’s comparisons of Orbán’s government to a dictatorship as “increasingly off-kilter”.[144] In May 2018, Murray was personally received by Orbán in Budapest as part of the “Future of Europe” conference along with other conservative figures like Steve Bannon, and according to Hungarian state media had an individual discussion and photograph with Orbán.” Is this the same guy?
Credible journalism, like WSJ, usually identifies the author and his works history.
What’s next, a guest column by Nick Fuentes?
who? ;-).. Mr. Trump said he had “no idea”… yep
It’s funny…can’t wait to have this guy “uncancel” Jefferson (never mind that he hasn’t been cancelled), but I would be mortified to have this guy making the case for me given his reputation and predilections.
Continuing the lesson, pure ad hominem from Purdy. Always a sign of intellectual weakness….
Isn’t that called “a lundeen”?
It’s more than ad hominem; this has to do with his reputation and political bent. This is a guy who carries water for a racist autocrat. Is that relevant to his efforts to “uncancel” R.E. Lee? It certainly is, and he would be cross-examined about his tendencies if he were offering an expert opinion in court. As an aside, I find it increasingly hard to make the case that support of R.E. Lee has no racial component when such dudes are making the case for you.
reputation is pretty relevant. Hard to equate that to an Ad Hominem.
Now that’s what we reporters used to call a non-denial denial. 🙂
A characterization employed mostly in the face of contrary opinion.
So you don’t think it’s relevant that the author carries water for a racist autocrat and also tries to rehabilitate R.E. Lee? I think it’s telling. A true ad hominem would have been to call him a toffy-nosed malodorous pervert. But that’s irrelevant to his of penchant for white nationalism.
Haner is confused about what an Ad Hominem really is.
He thinks if you bad mouth someone else it’s an Ad Hominem!
I guess all those words Haner has used in reference to Trump are Ad Hominems?
😉
So you’ve nailed it. It’s not ad hominem if it’s relevant to the arguments one is making. So if I called this guy fat and smelly and therefore untrustworthy, sure that’s ad hominem. But if his arguments have a rationale of white supremacy to them, and he’s carrying water for someone like Orban, that’s no longer ad hominem–it’s a totally relevant piece of evidence as to what animates this joker. Maybe we should look skeptically on an ostensibly “academic” argument when you have a history of supporting overt white supremacists.
You sound jealous.
Let’s see if I can untangle this illogical lump of gibberish …
1. The author’s book was in a photograph of a world leader taken by the world leader. Somehow that impugns the author. Fascinating liberal logic.
2. The author believes that calling Orban’s government being called a dictatorship is “increasingly off-kilter”. Oh, the horror!
3. The author went to a conference in Hungary where the Hungarian leader welcomed the attendees. My God! What next?
And somehow that negates the author’s opinion of Robert E Lee?
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
You should do more research on the nature of their relationship, and how Murray defends and carries water for Orban. Orban of course is infamous for being opposed to “race mixing.” This is relevant because it demonstrates Murray’s support of uncancelling Lee might be less about academic rigor, and more about white identity. But I’m sure it’s not…yeah right.
Sixteen posts under the “culture wars” tag this month so far, with four more days to go…About ten specifically on Marse Robert in the past two years, a couple cheering on his removal from any spotlight, sparking the same old same old comments.
I had a Dominion exec thank me yesterday for breaking the monotony, even if most of my posts are picking on his company and its pet project. 🙂
Truth to liberals is like Raid on roaches. My how they flip and flap.
Nick Fuentes, eh? Fuentes? Hmmm, nice to see that white supremacists have gone multicultural.
What is your take on the Candyman Sammy Bankman? Effective altruist or life member of a polecule?
polecule?
Polycule… or maybe he meant polecat. That would be my choice.
Yeah polycule. What a weirdo idea. Concubine for nerds with way too much money.
sounds about right… crypto “attracts” certain types…. eh?
The warning was all in the name, Bankman-Fried. Would you be inclined to take a seat on ValuJet flight 5050?
Seriously, fried, as in cooked in hot oil? Bankman? Where I grew up a numbers runner was called a “bagman”. His boss was a bankman.
There also appears to have been lots of mental impairment warning signs with him, too.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.