When History becomes - his story

It has oft been said that "history is written by the victors", that the truth lies somewhere beneath the distortions inflicted on it by one-eyed victors.

No doubt there are many cases that support this view. With widespread "Fake News" and "alternate facts" distortions of 'truth' are all too real. This was brought home to me when I viewed the most recent, excellent, short video from the Prager U. The video titled "The inconvenient truth about the Republican Party" highlights some, now most "inconvenient" and one could genuinely say 'alternate' facts, about the role of the Republican party in American history;

The inconvenient truth that the Republican party was responsible for freeing the slaves, and that it was the Republican party that has been the driving force in achieving civil rights for African Americans as well as equal rights for women. Now perhaps I am living in a cocoon, but had I been asked, prior to seeing this video, about the relative roles of the two parties in achieving civil rights for 'African Americans' and for womens' suffrage, I would have given more credit to the Democrats than the Republicans. So this video was indeed an eyeopener. Have a look at it for yourself.

Unfortunately this is not the first time my 'recollections' were at odds with reality.

The role of the democratic party in the defeat of the Americans and South Vietnamese in the Vietnam war (see The truth about the Vietnam War), and also its role in providing the 'template' for the laws of the Nazi regime (What the Nazis learned from American Progressives), are further examples of such distortions that I have learned relatively recently.

Why is this so? It is understandably very much in the interest of the Democratic party to spread beneficial re-interpretations of their subversive history. However where are the checks and balances? Where are our academics and media to correct such 're-interpretations'?

Alas, nowhere! Indeed by their silence they are complicit. The fabric of truth is being distorted by our 'last bastions' willingly spreading falsehoods to the unwary.

Our partisan media goes 'all in' on any any issue that supports its cause but totally ignores any fact that does not support it. It drums up emotions and fosters conflict.

More than ever our society needs trustworthy, incorruptible truthsayers. We need to have a new set of journalists to shoulder the burden. The current mob are not worthy.

What is Fake News?

In the latest of the series of incisive videos from Prager University Andrew Klavan presents "What is Fake News?"

Short and to the point it accuses all US mainstream media (perhaps including Fox) as purveyors of "Fake News" because they fail to present an accurate and unbiased account of daily events. I guess those of us who have a keen eye on the media are very aware of the slant given to many stories. I tend to use multiple sources from diverse political viewpoints  to form my views, but expect most people do not. So this is a very serious problem for our society. Yes I know that Klavan's analysis is for the US, but it is equally true for the UK and Aus.

As I noted in "Broken Windows" a free unbiased, accurate and representative media is the cornerstone of a successful democracy. Without doubt the failure of our media to provide fair and balanced analysis and commentary has created a society that has lost trust in its institutions. Though much derided by the media, it is the media itself that has caused much of the political instability we have seen in Australia, the UK and indeed the US.

Why did America lose the Vietnam war?

 Oft said to be 20/20, history is a study in hindsight written by the victors. In today's highly polarized world even after 6 decades it is difficult to get an objective analysis of the Vietnam war. The common belief is that it was a war not worth fighting, that America had no business interfering with what was an internal matter for the Vietnamese, that the anti-war movement helped stop an immoral war.

I guess all wars are immoral, but fighting a war against military aggression is morally justifiable.

A recent Prager U video, Why did America fight the Vietnam War?, highlights some inconvenient truths about the war that are well worth noting.

• The war was a result of military aggression by the North supported by communist allies Russia and China
• In the Paris peace accords of 1973 the South and North had reached a settlement to establish two autonomous nations
• Defeat only occurred because America failed to back the South after the North broke its agreement and launched another military offensive.
• The consequences were the deaths and imprisonment of many thousands of South Vietnamese , displacement of hundreds of thousands, and probably led to the subsequent Cambodian genocide

This holds a sobering moral lesson for Americans with wars in Afghanistan and against Isis. The consequences of defeat or withdrawal are significant.

Orwellian doublethink

Those who have visited these pages from time to time would have come across references to the Prager University, a right of centre think tank reaching out to its audience by an extensive range of short videos. Their videos cover all the hot topics of the day, presented by experts in their field.While they advance the Republican, Liberal, world view, even if you do not agree with their conclusions you will learn from these well researched short presentations.

So why am I selling this today? For some reason my phone under the instructions of Google Now selects articles for me to read. Yes this is the type of 'invasive but helpful' technology that is taking control of our lives, but that's another story
One of today's selections  "Youtube bans another Prager video" piqued my interest. The banned video is titled "I was taught to hate the Jews". I accept that the title is provocative as it clearly refers to a racism. But after watching the video I am bewildered. The content is clearly an argument against racism.  Yes, it may contradict the accepted beliefs of some people.  Yes, it may be an 'inconvenient truth' for many. Yes, it may upset many of Youtube's audience. But is it racist?
What is racist about a person pointing out that he was indoctrinated with a racist view? How can we ever redress racism if we censor those who speak up against it?

How can we ever redress racism if we censor those who speak up against it?

I note that following protests from many Youtube has now re-instated the video, but why was that necessary?
In the same vein why is it necessary to censor some 17 other Prager University videos as 'unacceptable' when they clearly do not present material that breaks moral standards, they do not incite violence or vilification of any group gender, race or religion. All the videos present a point of view supported by reasonable arguments and facts. Indeed more often than not there are references to source material that support the facts. The only basis I can see for the banning is that the Google, Youtube or indeed the specific employees making these decisions happen to find the opinions expressed contrary to their own world view. This however is not how we expect those charged with dissemination of information to behave. Indeed by doing so they are betraying their users. No doubt there will be a consequence for so doing.

We live in a strange world where the very organisations that encourage open free communication believe it is appropriate to censor what information is presented.

The very idea of banning a video for racism when it is clearly about fighting racism is nothing short of Orwellian 'double-think'.