Mo’Kelly is not a fan of Glenn Beck, but he deserves tremendous props for covering this topic. How this wasn’t sent to Mo’Kelly before now…not even sure. But this is outstanding that the Fox News network (or Glenn Beck specifically) researched this topic and featured it on air. The video will speak for itself. This ran at the end of May. Mo’Kelly MUST give credit where credit is due. Granted, there are Neocon undertones at the end of the program and the “point” of it all is closely tied to Republican talking points, but I won’t quibble about that. I think the larger expression of these facts trumps any criticisms I have.
PART ONE
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inoWGGeqdmo]
PART TWO
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY8o1I3jDUU]
PART THREE
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SujAcgdDeM4]
[MRMOKELLY.COM – COMING IN JUNE!]
67 responses to “Glenn Beck Deserves MAJOR PROPS for “Black Founders” Friday”
You know Mo…I grew up in the '60's and '70's, so I remember being taught these things. I noticed when my children were in school in the '80's and '90's that they were being taught another history. I took them to the library!!! We as parents are responsible to teach our children as well as the public education system. I spend a lot of time watching the History Channel and a couple of years ago, my son who is 25 now asked me how we can sit back and let history be changed right before eyes and no one stand up and say something about it? I didn't have an answer for him, I just said well we have to search for ourselves. I'm no big fan of Beck and his ilk, but I watch and listen to them once in awhile just to see what they are talking about. I have to give Beck a round of applause for getting this information out. This is something that BET and TVONE should be doing for not only Blacks, but for everyone. Instead they cater to mass media and Hollywood. I don't give a damn about what Beyonce and Puffy are doing! I don't watch Basketball Wives and mess like that because this isn't my reality nor anyone I know. Thanks for putting this on your site because Ia don't know how I missed the broadcast.
Southern Val…you just touched upon something. You just inspired my next editorial…
Hey Mo'. This was good. Part of the reason we don't hear about those spoken about in the video is they wanted us to be invisible. I know there were and number of Africans that contributed to the Freedom America talks about. But when you have people, like those in Texas, who don't want that part of our history known, then we have to look to other sources.
I'm not a fan of Glenn Beck, however, this was good information. He need to go to Texas and ask them why they are trying to change history. The books in our schools are not written by those who lived it or those of color.
Can't wait to read it Mo!!!
Rev, If you watch the video again, it was said that this information is exactly what Texas is INCLUDING in its new curriculum. Its the MEDIA that is saying something different.
Did any of you pick up on the accusation by this panel that "the left" doesn't want you to know this history because "they" would prefer that "you" (black folk) maintain a "victim mentality", so that, theoretically, they can convince "you" that you need "them" to help "right historical wrongs"?
Did you notice that?
The entire point of this piece was to invalidate "identity politics".
In other words, Beck and his panel have turned civil rights into a trick being played upon the country.
"Stop thinking of yourselves as victims! After all, the constitution is an anti-slavery document! That covers it! You're free! You were BORN with all the rights you'll ever need!"
I have to stop now.
The historical facts were fun to learn. I knew almost none of them.
The spin they put on the presentation of that information is sickening, disgusting, dishonest, reprehensible…
Shall I go on?
Mo,
I note that you did also catch the "tone", but that you basically dismiss it.
I don't know how you can.
When somebody grabs your attention in order to "teach" you something, then uses that teaching to further an agenda with which you almost certainly disagree, that is dishonesty and needs to be called out.
The essential message of the piece was: "Look at how far back African American achievement goes! You are not oppressed, you are a vital chunk of the American historical fabric! Celebrate your contributions! (While at the same time you stop seeking any sort of "preferential" treatment; i.e., affirmative action and other forms of corrective legislation.)
And most dishonestly, he blatantly accuses "The Left" of deliberately hiding this history from America, the better to make the case that blacks have always been oppressed.
The clear message is that "The Left" wants African Americans to feel oppressed, so that the left can save them.
Flim-flammery of the highest order.
<a>David Barton (author)
David Barton (born 1954) is an American evangelical minister and Republican political activist. He is the author of several books criticizing the current interpretation of separation of church and state in the United States. He was described in a 2005 Time magazine article entitled The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals as "a major voice in the debate over church-state separation." Barton has been widely accused of practicing historical revisionism, and described as being a pseudohistorian, and his work has been criticized by historians.
Link to above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barton_(author…
David Barton Should Start Taking His Own Advice http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/david-barto…
Submitted by Kyle on June 3, 2010 – 1:58pm
Not too long ago, I received an email from someone demanding to know why I constantly referred to David Barton of WallBuilders as a "pseudo-historian" instead of a "historian," given that he has copious original documents to back of his assertions.
I wrote back to explain that I call Barton a "pseudo-historian" not because he gets his history factually wrong (though he does that, too) but because he uses his history selectively to present a warped and biased view designed specifically to bolster his right-wing political agenda.
Whereas historians examine past events in order to present a coherent and comprehensive explanation of those event, Barton filters history through his own narrow ideology and highlights only those things that support his overall conservative political agenda.
I actually wrote a report about this tactic several years back that examined Barton's "Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black and White" DVD, in which he recounted the Democratic Party's historical hostility to African Americans and insinuated throughout that similarly racist views are still held by the party today. Barton ran through a litany of Democratic sins – ranging from slavery to Jim Crow to segregation to the Ku Klux Klan – while praising the Republican Party as the party of abolition and civil rights … until his history lesson suddenly ended after the Civil Rights Act of 1965.
Barton made absolutely no mention of the political transformation that overtook the country following the passage of this legislation or the rise of the Republican Party’s "Southern Strategy." Instead, it simply concluded with Barton telling his audience that African Americans cannot be bound blindly to one party or the other, but must cast their votes based on the "standard of biblical righteousness … the principles of Christianity … and an awareness that voters will answer to God for their vote."
I also posted a video containing excerpts from the DVD to demonstrate exactly how Barton misleadingly uses this history to support the Republican Party.
So imagine my surprise when I saw this quote from Barton praising the new textbook standards in Texas (which, not insignificantly, he helped to draft):
Defenders of the new social studies standards just passed by the Texas SBOE say it will encourage students to go back to the Constitution and First Amendment to learn about religious freedom. WallBuilders founder and president David Barton was among the six advisers the Board brought in to help rewrite the standards.
"You should present history has it happened — the good, the bad, the ugly; the right, the left, the center; the anything else that is out there," argues the Christian historian. "And I think that's the final product that we got, despite all the media clamor to the otherwise. When you just read the standards, they're extremely balanced, extremely fair, and extremely thorough."
Presenting a balanced, fair, and thorough look at history is exactly the opposite of what Barton does, which is precisely why he has recently become Glenn Beck's go-to historian. Incidentially, Chris Rodda has a great new piece up debunking Barton's favorite shtick of pulling out a rare Bible printed in 1782 by Philadelphia printer Robert Aitken and claiming that it was printed by Congress for the use of schools. Among all the other useful information the piece contains is evidence Barton's ties to Beck are really starting to pay off, at least in terms of book sales:
Needless to say, Beck and his audience are just eating this stuff up. Barton's appearances on Beck's show have propelled his fifteen-year-old book of historical hogwash, Original Intent, to bestseller status, reaching as high as #6 on Amazon. Right now, as I sit here writing this post, this masterpiece of historical revisionism is ludicrously, and alarmingly, holding the #1 spot in the category of "Constitutional Law."
Link to Chris Rodda's piece on Barton:
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2010/6/3/123527/…
Perhaps Beck can explain why there's no remedy needed for this:
Study: Blacks Routinely Excluded From Juries http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor…
Twenty-five years ago, Earl Jerome McGahee was charged with two counts of murder in the deaths of his ex-wife and her friend.
McGahee, an African-American, was tried by an all-white jury in an Alabama county that was more than 55 percent black.
The district attorney dismissed every one of the 24 blacks who qualified to serve on the jury, including Edith Ferguson, who had worked for the Selma, Ala., Police Department for many years. The reason cited for striking Ferguson from being a juror: "low intelligence."
You'll find this thread amusing:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100…
1) That painting that was done in Germany was one of many works done in Europe honoring Black Americans. Many works were done in Europe honoring Blacks; that was not unique. The issue is they weren’t done here… or like the Statue of Liberty were revised before they were allowed to come here.
2) That textbook of Blacks in the Revolutionary war was published in 1855 when it was still illegal for the vast majority of Blacks in this country to read. So the textbook was a textbook for White students, not Black ones. So if history of Blacks was taken away, it was take away from Whites first. Thus, the real question is, why is THAT?!!?
3) “We’ve” adopted a victim rhetoric. This information has been taken out before our modern “liberals” existed. Who is we?
4) The painting shows Peter Salem hiding, revisionist history said it isn’t him. But the revision is no worse than the original painting showing a hero hiding behind a White Man.
5) The major wars we have fought.. Revolutionary, Civil, WWI, WWII, were all losing efforts until the rules were changed to allow Black soldiers to fight.
6) Jefferson thought Blacks were inferior despite the fact that he was “married” to Sally Hemings, and Banneker had to convince “him” that Blacks weren’t inferior. (They left out an important point)
You know I love Black history, and I knew about 60% of that… but I did learn some good new stuff. You’re right Walt, the ending was horrible spin. But my issues are different. Why is it so important for the Right to honor the old times while discrediting modern Blacks. Arizona and Texas were not at the top of the list of states wanting to honor MLK. Why is it that MLK is said to have taught non-violence, and not non-violent resistence, or not violent aggression… which is what he really taught (non-violence was an adjective, not a noun… big difference). LIBERALS died in the Freedom Rides with Blacks in the 1960’s. Why take them out of the history books and replace them with Peter Salem? Why? Because if we take the focus off the recent past and put it on the long since past, it is easier to spin who is on who’s side. You can’t say that George Wallace of the early 1960’s was a supporter of Black anything… that is an impossible spin. So you focus on an earlier time where there is no proof of “why”, and make up your own reasons.
This information is not being put “back in” to the textbooks. It was never in there. This information was always in books, but very little of it was ever in text books. Access to public education in America was restricted to the rich for a long time, and when public education was introduced it was to designed to make poor workers more productive (the bell between classes mimicking the bell at factories, and summer vacation to mirror the major farming season). Segregation was still the rule, and it did not help the dividing and conquering of poor Whites and Blacks if you gave them information that made them respect each other. Remember, Blacks weren’t publishing texts books en masse until the 20th century. Whites weren’t making “Black” textbooks at all. The information was available in assistance reading, but not mainly in textbooks until the multi-cultural education trend started. But going back to Edward Wilmot Blyden in the mid1800’s, Books of Black history were being written in Europe and Africa, we just were getting them here. This is not a new problem. It’s just a new way of spinning an old problem. Okay, I’m done…
But I am happy that Beck did this for one reason. Much of his audience in not sophisticated enough to latch on the the spin part. They will be so shocked at the facts, or mad at him for talking about it, that it will may do more good than harm for many.
Although I understand and agree with much Walt has said, I believe Dwane best articulates why I'm not "angry" with what Beck did.
But I am happy that Beck did this for one reason. Much of his audience in not sophisticated enough to latch on the the spin part. They will be so shocked at the facts, or mad at him for talking about it, that it will may do more good than harm for many.
The positives outweigh the negatives. I can deal with spin, because to spin you have to at least acknowledge the facts in order to spin them. Heretofore, the Fox audience wouldn't even acknowledge the facts.
Dwayne,
It's even worse than you say.
What you got from this "historian" upon whom Beck has bestowed currency is a distorted version of history, designed to make political points.
There is a clear reason why Beck likes him, and vice versa.
You know, it occurs to me that what will eventually kill modern day "conservatism" (which I refer to as Know-Nothingism) is in-breeding.
They will destroy themselves.
But what's interesting is that Morris, who never gets fooled, got fooled here. He ate this up like it was suppertime. I've been waiting for him to respond to my long string of comments, but for once he's speechless.
As we all lovingly know, Morris never takes a backward step.
But in this case there was no forward step to take, was there? He got fooled. Hey, Beck's a pro.
So Morris just said nothing. I understand.
And even though Beck is as transparent as glass, and even though I am confident that Know-Nothingism will eat itself, there is still the present day to work through. There is still a sick society to heal.
And when everybody in here is done being shocked that they were duped and that Beck is at it again and all of that, I suggest we get back to speaking loudly and clearly that we will uncover fools and destroyers wherever they may be, whatever tactics they may use.
There are many more of us than there are of them, and we've had enough of their shit.
And Dwayne, perhaps you misunderstand Beck's audience.
Here is how a Know-Nothing will take that lesson:
"What are blacks so pissed about? The constitution protects them! They've had important roles in history! Why are they so mad? Is it because the left has them fooled?"
Honest, Dwayne, they can still be spun without recognizing the spin.
That's why they're Know-Nothings.
And now, ladies and gentlemen, I do believe it's time to, shall we say, recap what we learned from professor Beck:
African-Americans fought and died for this country.
If Mr. Barton had been allowed to talk any longer, he would also have clearly demonstrated why this is a Christian nation, so endowed by the founders themselves.
You can read up on that elsewhere.
Yes, what we learned is that, when people like Beck get to control the narrative, America has been a land of golden opportunity for African-Americans since Revolutionary Times. Among the bravest men who fought for this country were free black men.
Well, here's my thought on that: I don't think we want Glenn Beck controlling the narrative on this particular subject. I don't think we stand much of a chance of getting a full, complete picture of this particular slice of American History from this particular professor.
He is Professor Spin. Let us never forget that. If Glenn Beck's lips are moving, he's either sucking on spaghetti or he is spinning.
Never forget that.
How often? Never.
Professor Beck, why haven't all blacks risen above their poor beginnings? Why are so many black people still poor? Barely educated? Locked in jail? Single parents?
Why, professor Beck?
We already know the answer:
The left duped them.
Two things, gentlemen:
1. Beck was not speaking to you. He was speaking to his audience, the Know-Nothings.
2. It was not his intent to teach them that they had been wrong about race relations for all these years.
Question for both of you: If a Know-Nothing who sat through that program had just gotten done learning most of what they know about black history, were they better or worse off than they were before the lesson?
Were you?
Were we?
And gentlemen, when I said that modern day conservatism equals racism, a perhaps overlooked point of my Jay-Z piece, this sort of thing serves as a prime example.
Beck just gave you the racist's history of Black America.
You see, the Know-Nothings hate blacks. You're not like them, you used to be slaves, you don't belong with them or around them, and please don't make an issue of it.
The way they used to handle that was to beat the shit out of you until you did exactly what they told you to do. Then we got some laws, fought a war, got some more laws, and settled into this long, simmering conflict with occasional flare-ups.
They didn't start liking you any better, they just got a little more shrewd about it.
They began to explain to you all about empowerment. Nevermind that they own everything and intend to keep it that way, they want you to buy in to the American Dream. You too can achieve anything you want! You have as much right and as much access to your dreams as does any other American.
All true. But what they don't talk about, what they don't want to acknowledge, is that they really don't want you to make it, and they will put up all sorts of obstacles to help tip the scales.
I may have told you how many black men and women I've worked with in a 30 year career. Fewer than 10.
Professor Spin wants his audience to believe that civil rights is a leftist conspiracy, a made-up issue. Professor Spin only had to mention "The Left" a time or two in that program. He knew who he was speaking to. They nodded knowingly in the right places.
This is modern day racism, gentlemen, trying to co-opt, corrupt, repackage and re-sell the narrative of black history in America.
If you haven't done this already, I have a suggestion: Watch the program again, and this time keep up with all the little asides, and the points of those asides, and remember some of the brushed-over facts, such as the first black speaker, and also note how many times Beck and Barton share a "revelation" that "noboby knew" as if it's been a conspiracy to keep it that way, and here comes why: It's something positive about black people. That feeling on your cheek is the smack Barton and Beck just gave it.
Are you just gonna sit there and take it?
Walt for me it's very simple. His "take" on American history is less important than the fact it is being discussed in a public context in a Fox News program. I'm sophisticated enough to see how he's forwarding a conservative agenda, but that's less important than the public discussion of the historical facts.
Yes, I know his intent…but as long as he wasn't disrespectful in the presentation of the history (which he wasn't) then I can stomach the other stuff. It is still Fox News. For me to say we are all better off without having him done the program would be a lie on my part. I can "handle" anybody who would try to twist this program into some conservative talking point down the road. For if this is your ONLY Black history reference point, then clearly you are ill-equipped to use it for ill-gotten gain.
I stand behind what I said, it does more good than harm and any light shed on the truth be it even for ulterior motives is a good thing. I didn't need Glenn Beck to be The History Channel.
Nor you do you need Glenn Beck to be the Revisionist History Channel.
That is his clear intent.
Now, you say he does good for your cause by doing good for his? Even by accident?
I'm sure we all agree his intended audience was not you. It was his Know-Nothing followers, those who call themselves "conservative."
Agreed?
That audience was, as I explained above, spoon-fed a sort of "look how good Willie Mays was" version of black history.
Except that Willie Mays still ate on the bus.
The story isn't that there were black founders. The story isn't that there were great African Americans whose voices helped shape history. The story isn't that free black northerners participated in the revolution. The story isn't that black men were elected to Congress after the Civil War.
Well, to Beck it is, because all he wants his audience to focus on is black achievement, and he wants to carefully construct two pillars with that lesson:
1. You didn't know about these facts and people before because the left doesn't want you to.
2. Blacks need no help achieving great things in America. Affirmative action didn't make this man do that thing. No, that was his American spirit rising up, and look at all he accomplished. All you need is more of that spirit.
What he's trying to do is steal the narrative and sell it back, except in his version Civil Rights is a perversion, a distortion, a bad thing, something the left stole from you so they could sell it back to you.
Except for those damn lynchings, he might just get away with that distortion.
Except for the overwhelmingly disproportionate percentage of blacks in jail. Without diplomas. Single parents. Unemployed.
Zero net value. Or lower.
All severely disproportionate. How does Glenn Beck's history of Black America account for that? Leftist scam?
He's trying.
And the background on Barton is the kicker. He is one of those people who pretends he's something, and those who really are that something think he's a freak and a fraud.
And he is Beck's go-to historian.
This needs to be pushed back in Beck's face.
I'm trying.
Pushing it back in Beck's face only fuels what you lay out. The only problem I have with what he did is the Conservatism twist at the end trying to connect non-existent dots for Republican propaganda purposes. But I stand beside what I say, the positives outweigh those negatives.
And Morris, this is one of those times when it's not only a bad idea to keep it simple, it plays directly into the enemy's hands.
That was exactly what he wanted you to do.
I would be willing to bet big money that the majority of Fox's viewers knew next to nothing about Frederick Douglass for example. The INFORMATION given out was accurate. The INTERPRETATION of that information by Beck is inaccurate. That's different from offering revisionist history.
I don't know what else to say.
It is clear to me what Beck tried to pull here.
I am surprised that it worked on you.
I consider it dangerous that he got away with it, here of all places.
When I re-read your glossy intro, I can feel your excitement. You couldn't believe that this man was giving black history equal opportunity.
Somehow, that excitement caused you to watch this video without seeing what was actually going on.
Did you notice the frantic pace of the program? How things were raced over at lightning speed?
Except when? Except when Beck was pontificating. But when information was presented, it went by in a flash, followed by revelations and asides and little accusations.
This wasn't history, it was propaganda.
I didn't get a chance to watch it for the first few days it was up, and I saw some approving comments. Then I watched the piece.
Going in, I was prepared to allow Beck to spend a few minutes of his life being human, especially after reading the comments. But what I saw was, very well crafted, neatly packaged political positioning.
I would like a serious black historian to deconstruct this piece. I'd like Dr. West's take on this.
Morris, you have connections in the black intelligentsia, how about you ask them their opinions, was this Beck thing a net positive or a net negative? Was it respectful or disrespectful of the African American experience?
If those men say that my position is full of shit, then I will have to agree.
Prince Whipple
————– http://www.johnjhenderson.com/Notables/Biographie…
Prince was a slave owned by Brigadier General William Whipple, a signer of the Declaration of Independence. Gen. Whipple fought in Washington's army and brought along Prince as his servant, with the promise that Prince would be rewarded for his duty by being granted his freedom at the end of the war.
Prince was actually freed 7 years after the end of the war, just one year before Gen. Whipple died.
On Beck's program, David Barton says this:
"
But up here are Prince Whipple, but the other is Oliver Cromwell. There are actually two blacks in front of the boat and they served not as slaves. They were free men who served with Washington on the general staff throughout the revolution from start to finish.
"
According to Barton, Whipple served as a free man to win independence for his country. According to actual history, Whipple was his master's servant all through the war.
It may not be clear to some readers that there were both free black men and women as well as slaves in the north at the time of the revolution.
According to "A narrative of the Negro" By Leila Pendleton, in 1775 there were 5000 slaves in Connecticut, for example. In the south, the numbers were in the tens and hundreds of thousands.
The following is an interesting study of slaves and the revolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_an…
There were free black men who fought as such in the war; there were black slaves who served their masters who were engaged in the war; and there were slaves who fought in the war in the hope of gaining their emancipation.
Cromwell was a free black man; Prince was a slave.
Personal opinion:
I disagree with the description of the Constitution of the United States as an "anti-slavery document".
Such a document would have actually outlawed slavery.
By failing to outlaw slavery, the Constitution codified it.
The simple fact is that American History from 1776 through 1865 is the history of enormous conflict over the issue of slaves. The constitution did not settle anything (quite deliberately; only a compromise got the thing ratified). As a result, Congress all through the early to mid 1800s was filled with debate over the legality of enslavement; the freedom of slaves who entered a free territory (Dred Scott), the ability of new states to be "slave" or "free" (the Missouri Compromise) until, finally, southern states began seceding from the union to protest the erosion of their rights.
None of the above would have been even remotely necessary if the constitution had prohibited slavery.
It did no such thing.
Hey Gents,
I may have been short and vague in what I was saying, but I got your points Walt. Beck didn't fool anybody. He wasn't talking to me, he was talking to his core audience… trying to show them that people who say his is racist are wrong. He was trying to gain sympathy, and thus gain more strength. Since he is always losing sponsors, it is important that his followers be enamored enough to fight for him no matter what… which means they will tune in to be sold certain products no matter what.
The people in the audience were plants, I ignored them. Even the tone of the questions they asked weren't of confusion, shock or new awareness, but of being assured of something and seeking validation for their knowledge from the "experts" at hand.
It really is common knowledge that Crispus Attucks was the first man killed in the American Revolution, it isn't a known fact that he was a leader of a mixed-race contingent of leaders in Boston at that time. So in getting that information out, I'm glad Beck did it. That is the point that Morris is trying to make. Some of that information getting out is going to divide their ranks. In making the argument that "liberals are selling a victim mentality so Blacks continue to need them", he is sacrificing the "this is our country and Blacks have always taken, never given, and never contributed anything aside from slave labor". That second point is a major platform of the Klan and Klan-like groups. In trying to revise his message so he can hold reinforce his current followers against his current foes, and grab and hold a few more conservative Blacks, he is alienating some of the radical factions of the conservative movement. Actually, that might not be a bad thing for Beck and his cohorts, because distancing themselves from radical/racist conservatives without losing support of numbers would definitely help them.
In the process of posting and reposting this program from site to side, people of all races will learn something new… and hopefully question some things… and hopefully research some things. Walt, you read my post from a few years ago about why I like speaking for Black History Month. It's not about teaching someone all of Black History (cause you can't go from Kush to Obama in 90 minutes), but you can give people two or three "wows" that make them want to research themselves. So again, I can see this doing some good things. I may not be as hopeful as Morris that the positives will considerably outweigh the negatives, but it's not always how many are influenced, but how is influenced.
I don't believe Morris was fooled Walt. I know him well enough to know that he is setting something up here. I know from him eating my sorority sisters alive that sometimes he uses a post to set something else up four posts later… and then the links to old posts come out, LOL. This ploy by Beck really has as much of a chance to blow up in his face as to work. It is the work of a desparate man. But he did it, and my boy Anderson Cooper didn't. And that's a reality. The "revelations", and the "nobody Knews", were the most insulting part of this thing for me. But I've been insulted too often to focus on that. So I "made" myself ignore to look at the big picture.
This was political spin from a political spin doctor. But like the best jokes are based on the absurdity of reality/truth, so is the best spin. The reality/truth of the history stands, and will stand after we move on to a different type of spin. I'm not impressed, but I am thankful for what "could" come from this. If he were to do a show about how many presents were "legally" Black before Obama, then I would be impressed. But that won't happen, because again, it would be unspin-able.
I'll again keep it simple. The information put forth didn't "educate" me or those who have a general knowledge of African/African-American history. But to Dwane's point it flies in the face of those who wish to put forth the idea that the contributions of African-Americans are negligible at best.
What hasn't been mentioned is that Beck inadvertently made an eloquent argument for the continuation of African-American History Month. His acknowledged ignorance of virtually everything shared within his program is the truest acknowledgment of why it should continue to exist.
I'm un-bothered and unaffected by spin.
I mention African-American History Month because the argument was put forth that it was no longer needed when President Obama ascended to the Oval Office. In fact, such thinking indirectly led to the Arizona bill targeting ethnic studies in Arizona.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/12/nation/la…
Again, Glenn Beck just made an eloquent argument against that bill and other conservatism tenets which you articulated in your editorial here. There are some things you just can't spin and to carry the metaphor to its conclusion…if you spin something long enough, you've traveled 360 degrees and you're back to where you started.
When the information is out there, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. To publicly acknowledge one's own ignorance is acknowledging the need for the information.
The good continues to outweigh the bad. Heaven help if some Neocon would dare try to use this program as an argument point about African-American history and contemporary politics. That would be laughable and I'm not afraid of Beck using this to further marginalize African-Americans. Heretofore everything he's done marginalized us, through acting as if we didn't exist. Of course the audience questions were from plants. That's not the point. It's the acknowledgment of history. Like they say, he's on record now. This program was only the tip of the iceberg in a history sense, but it is a slippery slope that Republicans must be careful to trod down (to Dwane's point.) Once you concede certain truths, you can't go back and deny them later on.
And Walt, please stop misspelling Dwane's name. 🙂
Oh, as a side-note Walt, yes there were too many slave owners co-signing the Constitution for it to be an anti-slavery document, because it gave an economic value to a slave. The Emancipation Proclamation wasn't an anti-slavery document either… it was a politcal threat document because states like Delaware that did not cecede were allowed to keep their slaves. The 13th Amendment wasn't an anti-slavery document, it just made slavery a crime based issue rather than a race based issue (thus our current usage of mandatory minimums for life in prison). There has never been a formal Anti-slavery document passed in this country. For the record.
Also, the original 13th Amendment made people with "titles" inelligible to run for political office to keep the power in the hands of the common man. Somehow this amendment "disappeared, and the slavery one put in it's place. Imagine our country's history over the last 200 years if lawyers and soldiers could not run for office.
Since we were talking about history, I just thought I would throw some stuff I thought was interesting out there.
lol
I can do that 🙂
Well as I said, Beck wants people to take this program at face value, that liberals have hidden this information from the population.
Other than the fact that this program is rife with lies, distortions and scandalous accusations, I see your point.
No, but seriously.
You and every commenter before me gave Beck unfettered credit for this program.
He deserves no such thing.
With all due respect to Dwane, you may now be coming to understand what Beck was up to, but at first you and others took him at face value.
NEVER take anything Beck says at face value.
Same for Hannity. Same for Limbaugh.
If Beck is discussing Black History, be even more wary. If he seems to b trying to make nice, be even more wary.
Walt, I don't think ANYONE here didn't implicitly understand Beck's motive. ANYTHING on Fox News channel has an underlying motive. Nobody in these discussions I believe is that naive. When Pat Buchanan is on Sean Hannity's show singing the praises of (then) Senator Obama's DNC nomination acceptance speech, we can appreciate Pat being "intellectually honest" enough to give credit where credit is due…but also know that there is some hidden motive attached. To me it was setting the stage for the "teleprompter" criticism…but I can compartmentalize these things. I can acknowledge the praise he gave and know it may be for ulterior motives…it's the Fox News channel.
But the credit in both instances was necessary and that's the point. I don't "like" Beck now, I don't think he's now somehow sympathetic to African-Americans or a friend to the issues most important to us. But I am willing to bet he informed some heretofore REALLY ignorant people. And that's not a bad thing.
Dwane,
I prefer your history to Beck's, that's for sure.
🙂
I had typos galore in that post. My sincere apologies. The only one I neeed to correct is the "do a show about how many ***presidents*** were “legally” Black before Obama."
We had several Black presidents, no Black presents…at least nobody gave me anything. LOL
Morris,
What I think happened is this.
Somebody at Fox said "Glenn, we're supposed to be fair and balanced. I've got some black folks asking me, weren't there any black founders?"
Beck said, "Let me ask David."
David said, "As a matter of fact, Glenn, I wrote a book about it."
Nobody can accuse David Barton of making up his own history. Barton does research and does attempt to prove the accuracy of his version of history. Careful scrutiny reveals that Barton has a bias toward a certain interpretation of history.
And he was flat wrong about Prince. Prince did not fight at all and he was at no point a free man, until well after the war.
And he was almost certainly wrong about the Congressional Bible. In any case, his interpretation is highly disputed.
Two things concern me.
First, This mixture of fact, distortion and outright fiction renders the entire project worthless. Beck did no due diligence. He plucked his favorite pseudo-historian and plopped him in the chair, surrounded by pretty pictures and a black professor who spoke maybe twenty words the entire time.
This pseudo-historian spun a tale of black achievement which not only left out the actual reality of the black experience in America at the time, but wholly distorted what he did present.
The only good which could possibly come from such a segment is when muckrakers like me take the much closer look that this thing deserved in the first place.
The second thing, which I omitted above, is this:
He fooled you.
The implications of this are somewhat staggering.
You never challenged the veracity of his guests nor the claims they made. You wiped away the asides, but the asides were the entire point of the piece. You chose to bask in the glow of black achievement, either clueless that you were being sold a fiction peppered with facts, some correctly represented and some not, or you were just too busy enjoying the experience to care.
I'm real sorry to have to point out that you were served a shit sandwich with some sugar on top.
You and several others were in fact fooled by Beck. You said you had to give credit where due.
You did not say "I want to thank Glenn Beck for setting himself up on a tee for me."
And for sure you would have, if you had seen what he was really doing. I know this because I know you, and that is what you do. When somebody makes a big mistake, you bring out the guns.
You brought out the flowers here.
So that's my second concern. This slickster fooled you, and he snuck this agendized freak past you disguised as a historian.
And you believed everything he told you.
I dare you to sit through that show a second time without feeling your skin crawl.
I absolutely dare you.
Whether Beck was "sincere" is neither here nor there for me.
Here's a fun game:
Imagine how Barton would have presented the painting of the crossing of the Delaware if he had to explain that Cromwell was a free man but Prince was a slave.
Have fun with it!
"
Mo’Kelly is not a fan of Glenn Beck, but he deserves tremendous props for covering this topic. How this wasn’t sent to Mo’Kelly before now…not even sure. But this is outstanding that the Fox News network (or Glenn Beck specifically) researched this topic and featured it on air. The video will speak for itself. This ran at the end of May. Mo’Kelly MUST give credit where credit is due. Granted, there are Neocon undertones at the end of the program and the “point” of it all is closely tied to Republican talking points, but I won’t quibble about that. I think the larger expression of these facts trumps any criticisms I have.
"
What about Prince, Morris? A free man fighting alongside General Washington? Or the personal servant of Gen. Whipple?
This man is a historian?
Perhaps Beck's sincerity doesn't matter at all to you, but certainly the veracity of him and his "expert" should have.
Yes, I give credit where credit is due. I'm talking in circles now. "The larger expression of these facts trumps any criticisms I have."
Yes, I stand by what I said, the good outweighs the bad. If Republicans are now willing to acknowledge and even debate the historical contributions of Africans/African-Americans…I welcome that.
And yes, Beck's insincerity is neither here nor there. He did not mock or disrespect the history and that is where I would draw the line. I find very few news commentators "sincere." This is not a new phenomenon.
I would make the argument Beck stands to lose more than gain by doing the show. He could've very easily gone more in the Tea Party rhetoric direction and played to his base. This does NOT play well with his base, spin or not. If you argue otherwise you're contradicting your own editorial here.
I can take it for what it's worth and see it for what it is and not be grossly offended by it.
southernVal:
I have to give Beck a round of applause for getting this information out. This is something that BET and TVONE should be doing for not only Blacks, but for everyone.
Rev. Kupaji Jaliwa
I’m not a fan of Glenn Beck, however, this was good information.
The two points being: (1) See how easy it is to accept information when it comes from trusted sources?; (2) How did this make it past the firewall?
Morris wrote:
Beck… did not mock or disrespect the history and that is where I would draw the line.
I, I just don't know how you can say that.
Morris, you find yourself in the unenviable position of defending the factual accuracy of a Glenn Beck program. Most horrifyingly, you find yourself attempting to defend Beck's version of black history.
Because if his history is not accurate; if it is distorted and mis-stated, then certainly he was no showing the subject respect.
I'm at work all day or I would have kept up the fact-checking. But since I got a good one right out of the gate, it will do for now.
What about Prince, Morris?
Tonight at midnight I will go live with my ustream webcast. You can come to blog.waltbennett.com and participate, or watch it later.
I don't expect Morris to say "I was wrong", because that's not what Morris does. I don't even really expect him to disavow his misplaced enthusiasm.
But I am free to explore these things myself…
Walt, we're all entitled to our opinions…doesn't make me wrong. But I will say that the expression of African-American history is and will always be better than the non-expression of it. And history agrees with me.
Midnight east, 9 PM Cali time.
Morris,
"wrong" is a little subjective in this case.
I say you were "fooled".
Your own words indicate your unbridled enthusiasm.
But I get it, I really do: You were excited that Fox was even acknowledging such a thing as Black History. You were astonished that Beck had dedicated a program to it.
And that's where I say (a) Fox was trying to strike the "fair and balanced" pose and (b) Beck ran a charlatan past you and declared him an expert, and his purpose for that was to push his agenda.
Leaving the viewer to either sniff the duplicity out for themselves or rely on people like me to point it out.
I will say again, and I bet this is the last time this will ever happen to you: I am stunned that Beck got this crap past you.
And I don't envy the position you find yourself in now.
I'm more than comfortable with giving Beck props for this. MORE than comfortable. It's fine you don't envy this comfort. Nothing "happened" to me, nobody "got over" on me. I'm pleased that Beck did the Black history piece and you've ignored my reasons why to offer your reasons why I shouldn't be pleased.
Sorry, but they don't rise to the level of important to me.
Simple parallel: Michael Steele may be a token for the Republican party but his position in the Republican party is still extremely significant and meaningful. Yes, he may be a thinly-veiled attempt to court Black voters, he may be disrespected by the multitude of rank and file Republicans, but the picture is bigger than just Michael Steele.
The EXACT same applies here. If "circumstances" are forcing the party to move in directions which make their rank and file uncomfortable or acknowledge the inherent diversity of this country, the good outweighs the bad. They didn't "sneak" Michael Steele past me and Glenn Beck didn't sneak anything past me.
You can jump up and down and swear I was hoodwinked and you're free to take that stance. But I know better. I can give credit for doing something, even if it were done with nefarious motives. Sometimes bad intentions lead to good results.
You never considered that this discussion leads to others on the network. And in those other discussions this first one can be challenged on all your points. But in absence of it, there's no discussion at all on the network. I don't need to agree with Condi Rice and her conservative values to know that her role as Secretary of State is of tremendous importance, historical and political…whether she was being used as a token or not for Republican recruitment.
The picture is bigger than the politics of 2010. One day you'll get it and I don't envy the position you're in which precludes you from getting it.
But as always in The Mo’Kelly Report…we strive to go deeper.
Oh, sorry, you wrote that on your new thread.
Evidently, you didn't really mean always.
Unless you meant "Sometimes I sit back and let Walt do it for me."
And not a word of thanks. I busted my ass to deconstruct the deceit being promulgated on you and those who trust you.
I didn't expect you to like it. I didn't expect you to be grateful that your lack of due diligence and misplaced enthusiasm were revealed.
I did naively expect grudging acknowledgement, and I never expected that you would, rather than admit what happened, try to spin it into something you knew all along and meant to do.
Hogwash.
Morris, sometimes your ego beats the shit out of your brain.
Wow Walt, you're treading dangerously close to the immature line. I see you grasping for your marbles as we speak. Since you acknowledge that "I know Black folks"…
Be clear that the Black folks on this thread haven't had an issue as of yet with the videos.
Also, if you like we can test each other's on-hand knowledge of Black history. So if the person who knows Black folks and Black history is comfortable with what Beck put forth…a simple "ok" is the appropriate response from you.
You call it ego, I call it common sense. I didn't get the memo as to you deciding what is offensive to me and other Black people. Noted.
And let me just add this: You know black folks a whole lot better than I do; I know white folks a whole lot better than you do.
You should be deferring to me on this. This white dude was paying no respect to blacks with this piece, unless you mean blacks who deny the need for civil rights.
And let me continue to ask in the hope that you will respond:
What about Prince? Why did Barton rewrite his story? Isn't Barton the historical brains behind this project?
He's a white dude too, Morris.
Why did you trust white dudes on Fox to teach you Black History?
If you had simply got behind this deconstruction when you had the chance, we wouldn't be going through this right now.
Morris,
I take the entire thread as a whole. I start at the top and work my way down.
I do not trust that the lack of additional comments on this thread means tacit acceptance of your view.
It might mean that they don't care. It might mean that we're entertaining them. It might mean they disagree with you and don't dare say so.
You can take people apart for disagreeing with you.
I don't think you and I are in any danger of losing credibility with each other over this. We've been down too many roads. We know the way back.
All I really wish is that you were available to join me in giving Beck the evisceration this despicable show deserves.
And you still don't address my direct questions:
What about Prince?
Where was your due diligence?
Why did you let white dudes from Fox have a free pass in the first place?
Knowing what you know now, why do you still?
It really is sometimes about your utter refusal to ever take a backward step.
Something I'm sure your loyal readership knows quite well 🙂
I just bet that Jack is itching to break his silence.
It's OK, Jack. We all get mad. Then we get over it.
Morris,
I have to laugh at this one, hopefully so will you:
You just told me that I'm not the authority on what's offensive to black folks. Well I already knew that but anyway.
And yet you let Beck be the authority on black history.
Now damn it man, that's funny!
I didn't "let" him be the authority on anything. And neither did I intimate he was.
🙂
Is there a way to do a wink?
😉 maybe?
Yeah that did it.
Morris, this is one of those times where I just know what I know and you're just going to move on.
I understand.
🙂
Dammit I meant 😉
And your posture on this particular post aside, I agree with Dwane: Somewhere down the line you will give Beck the beating he is asking for.
And your posture on this particular post aside, I agree with Dwane: Somewhere down the line you will give Beck the beating he is asking for.
I'm sure I will too…he is still Glenn Beck that hasn't changed. And it didn't preclude me from beating on him prior to now.
And, assuming that you really won't be answering any of my questions, that sort of kills the thread at this point, leaving me to ask:
How were the ratings? Did a high number of readers keep up with this dialog?
Prior to now there was no "now", was there?
😉
(How were the ratings?)