You Cannot Change History (just because you don't like it)

You Cannot Change the Past

(just because you don’t like it)

          It is often said that the victorious are the ones to write history from their point of view.

This is true in that, as the old saying goes, “To the victors go the spoils.”

In this case, the spoils could be spinning the facts to favor a certain way of thinking.

In the news today, there is controversy over the renaming of three Confederate themed parks in Memphis, Tenn.

The names are considered to be inconsiderate

and  / or racist to African Americans.

Forrest Park, specifically, was deemed offensive

as Nathan Bedford Forrest was an owner of slaves and the first Grand Wizard of the KKK.

There are protests planned by the Ku Klux Klan, et al even though the name changes have already passed Memphis City Council.

Memphis Councilwoman, Janis Fullilove, left the Council’s meeting that passed the name changes in tears as fellow Council Member Boyd defended Nathan Bedford Forrest for whom one park was named.

Ms. Fullilove was quoted as saying, “I was just upset about Boyd talking about Nathan Bedford Forrest being a friend of black people. That is a lie and history shows to us that’s a lie.”

Boyd was later quoted; “I think they need to read the history of that person. I think it is much ado about nothing.”

In an article written by Jeff Black, staff writer of NBC news, a person named Katherine Blalock was quoted as saying, “They are trying to get rid of history. They are trying to rewrite it.”

Becky Muska, a resident of Shelby County, TN was quoted from an article from wbir.com as saying,

“This is going on all over the country, revisionist history. It’s the thing to do.”

The article did not elaborate as to whether Ms. Muska was in agreement of this practice or not.

“Revisionist history” is a very handy thing, I would think.

If it is to be accepted as common practice, it could be applied to my history as well.

A short outline of my true history is:

I was born in Virginia to educated parents. (A chemical engineer and a school teacher)

We later moved to North Carolina when I was two.

I went to public school until the third grade.

My parents transferred me to a private school where I graduated with a diploma and went on to higher education.

Using revisionist history it could read as follows:

I was born the same day as John F. Kennedy Jr., in the same hospital. My Mother and Jackie Kennedy were maternity ward roommates and became best friends.

Until I was two, I crawled around with the Kennedy children. I often played in the oval office with John John.

We moved to New York City when the former First Lady sold her properties in Washington D.C. We bought an apartment there to be near her and my very best friends, John and Caroline.

I attended private classes with the Kennedy’s in the most prestigious school in New York. I was awarded my high school diploma with John Kennedy Jr. in a private ceremony. Ronald Regan was there along with other famous government officials.

I went to Cambridge in England and my famous classmate went to Texas A & M and graduated as an agronomist first class.

This is purely fiction, or is it?

As the reader was not there, they cannot say for sure.

Many accounts have been written about the former First Family, but these facts are recorded by historians. Beyond birth and education records, there are few truly verifiable personal facts.

Revisionist history changed the entire course of my life. It is completely untrue, but one hundred years from now, who could really say if it was a good account or not?

The undeniable facts are that John F. Kennedy was assassinated while holding the highest office in the land. Jackie Kennedy was a widow and she had two children.

Can we use revisionist history on JFK?

It was very nasty and disturbing how he was killed.

We don’t like this fact. Using revisionist history, we change it to something more palatable.

Poor President Kennedy collapsed due to overwork and excessive travel due to the duties of office.

There, now there was no shot, no trauma, no unpleasantness, just that a great man passed as he performed his elected duty.

Does tidying up things we don’t like or agree with make it a true history?

The answer is no.

It is unfortunate that we are human beings and we all make mistakes.

We try to learn and grow as a society and reassess our positions on social behavior and issues. Changing how we feel about the events of past doesn’t make them go away or alter them in any way.

Here are the facts:

1)    Many of the key figures in the history of the United States owned slaves.

2)    Right or wrong, it was a common practice at the time. If at some point it becomes morally undesirable to own a car, do we pretend NASCAR never existed?

3)    Slavery was a divisive issue, but was not the reason for the Civil War.

4)    The reason for the secession of the Southern states was the infringement of state’s rights by the federal government. Slavery became an issue in 1863 when Abraham Lincoln penned the Emancipation Proclamation.

5)    This document was written and delivered as a way to encourage the Union troops to continue to fight. This document made the war a moral concern as many soldiers felt the Civil War was a “rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight.” This opinion was coupled with the fact that the North was taking many defeats as the South had most of the good West Point educated generals.

6)    Many good men fought and died for their own personal beliefs. Many fought and died against their own family members as the Civil War caused brother to go against brother as opinions varied.

7)    The North (Union) blamed the South for the assassination of Lincoln and the war. The South was placed under martial law.

8)    Lawlessness prevailed as the courts were biased against the citizens of the South. Many came from the North with the intention of taking their spoils of war and bringing the South and her people to heel. Lawlessness and violence were no more appealing than they are today. Men felt helpless to protect their families through the court of law. The Klan was started.

9)    Nathan Bedford Forrest was the original Grand Wizard but he was not the founder of the Klan. Several other men named John Lester, James Crowe, John Kennedy, Calvin Jones, Richard Reed and Frank McCord were the founders. It was formed as a prank in the style of college fraternities.

10)           Nathan Bedford Forrest did eventually leave the Klan. The original Klan had been adulterated by violent copycat groups that were not interested in the purpose of restoring order and safety. Later in life, he came to change his ideas as is our rights as human beings to rethink our paths and alter them as necessary.

11)           None of these facts can be changed because we do not like or agree with the customs of society in the 1800’s.

General Sherman was quoted as saying, “War is Hell,” and so it is.

If we forget our past, we run the risk of our future. The past mistakes will be forgotten and could be repeated.

The United States has a past. You have one and so do I.

I doubt that few could be 100% proud of everything we have ever done.

The United States had human leaders. Humans will almost always make their decisions based on what is good for them personally at that time.

Our past is full of both good and bad people. It is a fact.

The Civil War happened.

It is a part of our history. We can’t revise it because we wanted things to be different in a world we were not part of while history happened.

The good news is that in spite of our differences, in spite of the good and bad choices, the United States grew to become the standard of the world.

Let us not forget. Let us not revise. Let us rebuild with that pioneer spirit that made our country what it is today.

The Solution

The Solution

            It is not news that the United States economy and job market are in the toilet.

What is the solution to the economic problems in the United States?

More importantly, what is the solution to our own personal economic tragedies?

If we look back into our hallowed history, we can find the solution to today’s problems.

Americans have always been a breed apart, if you will, a uniquely adaptable, yet fiercely independent people.

Our mindset is different now, just as it was different from the status quo in Europe in 1620. It is just not conceivable to the average American that we are not endowed by our Creator to the right to freedom and the pursuit of our lives without dictation from a civil body.

The Pilgrims were the original non conformists, inspired by common beliefs promoted by Richard Clyfton, a Brownish Parson near Nottinghamshire England.

They wanted a separation from the Church of England and to be granted the right of independent worship.

The Puritans were willing to maintain their connection to the Church of England, but with concessions to some of their core beliefs.

Of course, the law maintained that you would go the Church of England and like it or face fines and / or prison time.

This forced attendance was the catalyst of the Pilgrims first migration to tolerant Holland.

However, in an effort to maintain their cultural identity, the Pilgrims arranged with investors to fund the trip to The New World.

These original Americans were looking for independent worship and opportunity for wealth. They were here to arrange profit for their investors and prosperity from the work of their hands.

The colony at Plymouth was established in community agriculture. It grew to include independent craftsmen, farmers and merchants.

The movement for independence from England grew from an unwillingness to be governed by a body that did not represent or understand the culture in the Colonies.

The same independent spirit was displayed in the mass immigration into Ellis Island from 1892 to 1924.

The difference in this migration was that the country was established.

The infrastructure and country were in place. Immigrants had heard of the land of milk and honey. They only had to find a job and become wealthy.

The only obstacle to this was the prejudices of the people.

“No Irish need apply,” et al, was the feeling of the day. Those established did not wish to hire or share with the newly arrived.

So, how did the newly arrived survive?

No one was willing to hire them. Some needed to learn English, but it was a lack of available jobs.

What was to be the solution?

These immigrants were not babes in woods. They had come to the United States with skills.

Small family businesses sprang up like fruit of the dragon’s teeth. Mom, Pop and the kids set out to earn a living and raise a strong family on their own. The attitude was you don’t have to give us anything. We are willing to make our own way, even if it is hard.

This was the rebirth of the American spirit.

This movement lasted until the 1960’s were all establishment came into question.

2013 is time for a rebirth of the American spirit.

The same problem that plagued the Ellis Island immigrants is the one we have today, a lack of available jobs and opportunities.

We were never much for rules. We never held with another telling us what to do with our own lives.

To paraphrase a conversation from a leading conservative radio show call in listener,

“I will not be held back by all the new laws or the bad economy. I will just put my head down and work hard. I will succeed, in spite of the times.”

That, my friend, is the road we need to travel.

The solution to our employment woes is to invent the better mouse trap.

To avoid the employee labor and healthcare laws, we have to find a way to do the labor with our own two hands.

We have to provide services and products that come from within the United States.

If we provide a necessary service, we are paid. If we are paid, we can afford to live and make purchase to drive the economy.

If the government pulls our dollar down, we will have to find another way to fund our enterprise. There is no law against barter, or trading gold and silver.

Our economy is driven by the people’s ability to buy and sell.

It is time for the everyday American with standards to remember from whence we came.

We are descendants of the free thinkers from four hundred years ago. We are the bold risk takers of the turn of the century.

Like the phoenix, we are going to rise from the ashes of this crisis, if we are willing to work hard and do it ourselves.

Actions of our elected officials are proving that their agenda is not really in our best interests. Both sides of the aisles are equally responsible for America’s decline.

If you are an American that would prefer to be chattel to a civil entity, these words are not for you.

If you feel that you can trust the government for your care, good luck to you.

Dig down deep and shelter that spark of liberty that runs in the blood of the American.

The Pilgrims were unafraid of hard work and risk, let us not be afraid either.

Are Unions an Anachronism

Are Unions an Anachronism?

         

          On 12/12/12 a right to work vote in Michigan turned violent and ugly.

The Union members drew first blood, violently attacking reporter Steven Crowder physically.

Union members practiced vandalism as they cut a news source’s tent to pieces. They offered the pieces to other Union supporters as a souvenir.

There is an online video where a Union member gets his entire face into a news camera to threaten anyone who goes against them.

Everyone has heard of the Air Traffic Controllers Strike in the 80’s and more recently the Hostess strike and the results thereof.

What are the origins of the Unions in the United States.?

The concept of a workers union dates back to the Pilgrims landing in the New World. Many New World colonists were craftsmen looking to profit from their labor.

Primitive unions or guilds of skilled laborers made appearances from time to time in various cities up and down the Atlantic seaboard of colonial America.

Seeking, “pursuit of happiness” through shorter hours and higher pay, organized printers were the first to go on strike in 1794. Several other groups of skilled labor followed suit in the next few years thereafter.

A lack of Federal laws to protect the worker led to the creation of many federations or unions in the United States.

 The National Labor Union or federation formed in 1866. They eventually persuaded Congress to pass an eight hour workday for Federal workers. The law did not hold up well as it was a casualty of the sweeping economic depression of 1873. Then, like now, the employee just wanted to be employed. The employee puts up with a little bit more as a trade off to unemployment.

The Industrial Revolution increased the demand for labor. However, this mostly resulted in great wealth for some and grinding poverty for others.

Safety and welfare issues were a concern as demand for manufactured items grew.

Teddy Roosevelt intervened in the Union Mine Workers strike in 1910. He appointed a commission of mediators to negotiate for a break in the strike.

The striking workers returned to work with an eventual ten percent pay raise.

The Triangle Shirtwaist Co. tragedy in 1911 led to the beginnings of government safety legislations, which are the roots of today’s OSHA.

The age old conflict of skilled versus unskilled, owner versus labor force, standard working conditions and the bottom line will most likely always be at odds.

That being said, and given the government’s continued involvement in the issue, resulting in better legislated protection of the worker, are Unions still a relevant, viable force for today’s worker?

This is where many will opinions will be brought into play.

Some say that in a capitalistic economy; to the winner go the spoils. You built it, they came, they manufactured, and they bought and sold. All that is left over from income and expense is for the victor.

Can the victor be victorious without a dependable labor force?

Unless the business creator is able to do all work with his or her own two hands, without any outside help, no.

The Golden Rule would allow for equal sharing in profit, or at least, some financial appreciation for a job well done.

Short of legislating morality, which is implausible if not impossible, the Federal government and union guidelines for the workplace have been established.

Writing from the viewpoint of one who has worked in a non Union factory and as a business owner, I can offer some insight on both situations.

From a business owner’s standpoint, there is waste in the Union labor system.

Hostess is a good example.

The Wonder Bread could not be delivered in the same truck as the snack cakes. It could not be loaded into the trucks by the same employees as the snack cake loaders.

This requires a parallel workforce and truck fleet to do the same work. It is a double expense to deliver to the same locations for distribution and sale.

Waste is contrary to a healthy bottom line. Non Union businesses can make do with one workforce to perform the same tasks.

The object of a business is to generate profit to either shareholders or owners.

A Union worker might argue that the non Union company would only try to work them twice as much for the same money. This is an issue as well, but where is the common sense factor? Forcing a double workforce cannot be logical, and abuse of the work force is not tolerable either.

The next bone of contention is the subject of CEO and top management bonuses.

Having worked in a non Union factory as the accountant, I remember the resentment I felt at the end of every fiscal year.

As the accountant, I was required to cut large bonus checks from the company’s annual profit to four or five top members of management.

The demoralization of this was felt by all workers who did not share in the success they had contributed to all year.

Right to work states do not allow for the security some might feel with the Unions.

Unions can often deter job growth or price the employer out of offering employment.

Is it better to have some possible security or an available job?

The government has legislated against many of the original abuses that caused the Unions to rise.

Employers have used this current recession and prior recessions to their advantage for squeezing maximum profit and work from a minimum of workers.

Unions often use force to enter a workplace and to control its workers.

Businesses and workers are vital to the economy and violence in the workplace is never an answer.

It seems that both the Employers and the Unions are guilty of exploiting the worker.