Secondly, Levin attempts to walk it back with this follow up post. But he does not back down from his original characterization of the content of the video being "really bad". He also claims in his follow up post that he "attempted to keep the discussion focused on the content of what was said and not on Liberty University or anything having to do with the religious or political views of three individuals in the video."
I don't believe that is completely accurate as Levin seemed incredulous that Liberty didn't teach "evolution or climate change" ("climate change" has replaced "global warming" since global warming is now a demonstrably proven fraud - but let's not get sidetracked with facts). So by continuing that line of discussion, the comments certainly get into "religious or political views" and the "guilt by association" of the "offending" professors in the video.
End of update.
Oh brother. Where does one even begin to respond to this: The latest outrage from Civil War Memory over a perspective that doesn't fit progressive historians' worldview and interpretation. The uproar is over this well-balanced discussion of the War Between the States by history professors at Liberty University:
The reaction and comments at CWM represent such a pot and kettle moment as to be surreal. For example:
And . . .
Of course, when one of the progressive historians' gurus, Professor David Blight, makes the following comments, it is in no way a "perfect example of allowing a political agenda to influence one's interpretation of historical events."~
Why doesn't the Confederacy just fade away? Is it because we are irresistibly fascinated by catastrophic loss? Or is it something else? Is it because the Confederacy is to this day the greatest conservative resistance to federal authority in American history? ~ David BlightAnd how about this:
The conservative movement in America, or at least its most radical wing, seems determined to repeal much of the 20th century and even its constitutional and social roots from the transformative 1860s. The Civil War is not only not over, it can still be lost. ~ David Blight
So tying modern politics to the War Between the States is nothing new, nor necessarily improper. It is my opinion that what most upsets the folks at CWM is that in the case of the historians at Liberty they are, by reputation, conservative.
And additionally upsetting to this crowd is the fact that, despite decades of establishment "mainstream" historians preaching that the WBTS was ALL about slavery, they look around and realize to their dismay that they've utterly failed in their goal of making their perspective the only one that is acceptable, not only to credentialed historians, but to the public at large:
Asked their impression of the main cause of the Civil War, a 48%-plurality of Americans say it was mainly about states' rights. Just 38% say the Civil War was mainly caused by slavery. Another 9% volunteer that it was about both equally. Young people are more likely than older Americans to say that the war's main cause was states' rights -- 60% of those younger than age 30 express this view, the highest percentage of any age group. Those ages 65 and older, by a 50%-to-34% margin, are the most likely to say that slavery rather than states rights was the main cause of the Civil War. Nearly half of whites (48%) say states' rights was the war's main cause, but so do 39% of blacks. (Source: Pew Research, April 8, 2011)That is stunning, given what's been published on this topic over the last 50 years. Of course, others have come to the same conclusion; both in realizing the general public's persistent perspective, as well as seeing the "frustration" of "idealistic" historians on a moral crusade. As historian Marc Egnal has noted:
And if you actually listen to the comments in the video, I think you'll find a good balance, but not one obsessed with slavery - as is most of modern Civil War historiography in the United States.
One could go on and on about other comments at the referenced post - read them for yourself. They're quite revealing. One insinuation does bear mentioning: everyone believes (except Liberty University folks) in evolution and climate change. Talk about being out of touch. Good grief.
And there's this:
Not an "actual" university? Really?
Liberty University is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges to award associate, bachelor, master, specialist and doctoral degrees. . . . As an accredited institution, Liberty University is eligible to participate in federal educational programs such as military tuition assistance, government tuition reimbursement programs, the GI Bill and corporate tuition assistance. Credits and degrees earned through Liberty are therefore recognized by private industry and by the military and federal government for promotion, assignment and position qualification standards.Perhaps it's just the conservative Christian aspect of Liberty University that has the CWM folks making such inaccurate statements. Or maybe it's because they teach creationism at Liberty, since that came up in the comments several times in the CWM post. What's that got to do with anything?
Speaking of teaching creationism . . . Patrick Henry College also teaches that belief. You know, the same college that has won at least four national debate championships competing against "actual universities" that don't teach creationism - schools such as Harvard, Miami and Syracuse. Evidently, the knuckle-dragging evangelicals weren't hampered by their belief in a Creator. Gee, imagine that.
Hmmm . . . maybe Liberty University would be more respected by the enlightened ones if they offered credits to their female students for not shaving their armpits - you know, like an "actual university." And they do teach evolution at that "actual university."
No additional commentary is really necessary, now is it?