Progressivism cannot survive American history - They must reinterpret, reinvent, and revise history with a social interpretation

As we look at the damage that has been done to history curricula by agenda driven progressive professors and progressive curriculum writers, the long term trend is easy to spot. First, they started by manipulating what the Founders said - revising and editing - and at this point the progressives have just had it and decided to remove it altogether. Or worse, they outright demonize American history.

One of the most well known items of progressive history revisionism is a book titled "George Washington, the Image and the Man". Published in 1926, it is well known for having exactly zero footnotes. It tries to create a brand new Washington out of whole cloth. Even worse, the book "The Godless Constitution" states the following:

Because we have intended the book to reach a general audience, and because the material we have cited is for the most part familiar to historians and political scientists, we have dispensed with the usual scholarly apparatus of footnotes.

Many will point to books written by Zinn, I myself have attempted to trace this revisionism back to it's roots. It's gotten so bad that there's even school districts out there who teach American students that the original tea party was perpetrated by terrorists. There is a rational answer for all this, in the writings of the progressives own literature.

In "The New Democracy", by Walter Weyl, the following is written: (page 160)

The new spirit is not all new. Before this we have known these types, or, at least, their prototypes. But what has been small has grown great, and what has been still has become loud. There has been a change in emphasis, which makes the new spirit a something different from the crass, state-blind individualism of yesterday.

The new spirit is social. Its base is broad. It involves common action and a common lot. It emphasizes social rather than private ethics, social rather than individual responsibility.

This new spirit, which is marked by a social unrest, a new altruism, a changed patriotism, an uncomfortable sense of social guilt, was not born of any sudden enthusiasm or quickening revelation. It grew slowly in the dark places of men's minds out of the new conditions. The old individualism - carried to its logical sequence - would have meant impotence and social bankruptcy. Individualism struck its frontier when the pioneer struck his, and society, falling back upon itself, found itself. New problems arose, requiring for their solution slight amendments of our former canons of judgment and modes of action. In many spheres of economic life the individual began to find more profit in his undivided share of the common lot than in his chance of individual gain. On this foundation of an individual interest in the common lot, the new social spirit was laid. This egoistic interest, however, was shared by so many interdependent millions, that men passed insensibly from an ideal of reckless individual gaining to a new ideal, which urged the conservation and thrifty utilization of the patrimony of all in the interest of all.

In obedience to this new spirit we are slowly changing our perception and evaluation of the goods of life. We are freeing ourselves from the unique standard of pecuniary preeminence and are substituting new standards of excellence. We are ceasing solely to adore successful greed, and are evolving a tentative theory of the trusteeship of wealth. We are emphasizing the overlordship of the public over property and rights formerly held to be private. A new insistence is laid upon human life, upon human happiness. What is attainable by the majority - life, health, leisure, a share in our natural resources, a dignified existence in society - is contended for by the majority against the opposition of men who hold exorbitant claims upon the continent. The inner soul of our new democracy is not the unalienable rights, negatively and individualistically interpreted, but those same rights, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," extended and given a social interpretation.

History revisionism on part of progressives is intentional. It serves their collectivist goals. George Washington once said:

If to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God.

What if there was no high standard set? What if there was no ghost of our Founders, watching over us? Get rid of the ghost, and you can do whatever the heck you want. That's why they've done this. You simply cannot repair what you don't even know exists.

http://tinyurl.com/bqkavru