Lies Across America is honestly a better book. Historical revisionism and looking at history from subaltern angles is done much better in books other than *Lies My Teacher Told Me *(though you should avoid Howard Zinn’s *People’s History of the United States *as well–I literally found an error on every page when I was reading it). Lies Across America does a great job in getting the reader to think about something they haven’t considered before: how historical memorialization and preservation shapes memory. It’s a good read, and it will stay with you every time you see a historical marker along the road or go through a historic home. Still biased, but a good book.
I see that this book is Spoke’s main bone of contention, and I think he’s mischaracterizing what Loewen wrote. Loewen certainly does hate Nathan Bedford Forrest, but he never insinuates that he is a minor general. Rather, Loewen points out that:
*There are more monuments to Forrest in Tennessee than there are to any other person in any other state
*Forrest’s defeats do not have attendent markers
*The text at the Fort Pillow memorial glosses over the atrocities committed there. (I do understand that Forrest has his defenders on this score with ample documentation, but the fact remains that the Fort Pillow memorial is extremely inadequate considering the facts of the case.)
*There are indeed markers relating to Forrest that memorialize trivia, including one indicating that his troops rested there one night.
Loewen’s got good points here, and I recommend his book, though I do admit that he lapses into leftist propaganda from time to time.
I don’t have the book. You obviously do. I am just asking you to quote Loewen’s text that mentions Rome, Georgia and Forrest City, Arkansas. That way, readers of this thread can see whether I have mischaracterized that text.
Then follow your own wisdom with the revisionist Loewen. Check his cites.
Well, first off, Forrest didn’t found the Klan. Not sure where you got that. It may be one of Loewen’s falsehoods that you’ve picked up.
Secondly, it’s not about deference, it’s about factual accuracy. Loewen wants his readers to believe that Forrest is lionized in the South not for any military accomplishments, but rather because of his association with the KKK. And then he proceeds to bend and distort facts, and omit context, in order to “prove” this thesis.
The libel Loewen commits is not against Forrest but rather against the South, generally, as he portrays the entire region as being in the thrall of the KKK.
I don’t have the book in front of me–I am at work.
I don’t remember the towns you’re speaking of–I suspect they’re not exactly vital to Loewen’s narrative. If I think about it, I’ll look at the book when I get home.
Further, I think you may be misinterpreting Loewen’s thesis as evidenced by your last post. Loewen doesn’t maintain that the south is currently in the thrall of the KKK. Rather, his point is that organizations like the United Daughters of the Confederacy put up numerous propagandic memorials extolling the virtues of the CSA during the Klan’s heyday (the 1920s, give or take several years) and that these memorials continue to shape historical memory in the region. It’s very difficult to get these memorials replaced or amended because of local politics, so plaques and other monuments that no responsible historian would ever put up continue to define much of the historic landscape. Loewen does cite an interesting exception–when a monument is damaged, it is often replaced with something far more accurate. He terms this “snowplow revisionism” after a particular incident where a really bad historical marker was run over by a snowplow; its successor was rather improved.
And, as you allude above, you obviously have the book, too, or else you wouldn’t have been able to check Loewen’s cites. Physician, heal thyself.
And back to the OP, my girlfriend and I have really enjoyed reading the works of Sarah Vowell. They’re not as thorough as many of the other books discussed here, but it’s lots of fun.
I was a grad student in history. Metabolizing books is what I used to do.
One of Loewen’s sources, BTW, is Marion Lucas, who is often villified by southern museum curators and the like as an apologist for Sherman. Marion Lucas was a friend of mine, and I assure you that there is no man more proud of his southern heritage. He is also an honest man, however, and Lucas’ treatment, as recounted in Loewen, may have caused me to take a greater interest than I would have otherwise.
Loewen uses those towns as examples of Forrest being lionized, so yes, they are used to support his thesis. I trust you will do us the favor of quoting the relevant passage when you get home. It’s a brief bit. Shouldn’t take you a moment.
You posted above that James Loewen infers the whole south is in the thrall of the KKK. I refuted your point with examples from the book. You then told me to go look up things in the book that would make you look good. I said no–that is in fact your job, if you so desire. What is difficult to understand about this? I don’t give a rat’s ass what James Loewen wrote about a couple of towns that probably make the central Nebraska backwater I escaped twenty years ago look like Alexandria. If you care, you look.
I don’t have the book. You obviously do. I am just asking you to quote Loewen’s text that mentions Rome, Georgia and Forrest City, Arkansas. That way, readers of this thread can see whether I have mischaracterized that text.