01 February 2016

Global Warming Will Prevent the Bicentennial of the Civil War


In Charleston, SC anyway. According to Professor David Blight:
if as a world community, as a species, we do not do something serious and soon to reduce greenhouse gases, and therefore stop global warming, then the commemoration of the Civil War in 2061 will likely not be held in Charleston to remember Fort Sumter, because that city may be under the sea. Perhaps, ironically, by 2061 we will have a new Lost Cause with which to contend: the long, failed effort to thwart the power and greed of climate change deniers.
"As a species"? Really? Who talks like that? No wonder most people just roll their eyes and laugh. Oh my. I suppose we could all retreat to the Rockies unless, of course, some other species becomes dominant by then and forbids our species from upsetting the delicate ecosystem.  I suppose we could just all stock up on floaties and hope for the best. 

And it looks like Blight's "new Lost Cause" (Really?) is alive and well, at least according to a recent international survey posted at YouGov.co.uk:
In Britain climate change has a share of concern of 10.8%, two points behind the global average and above only the USA (9.2%) and Saudi Arabia (5.7%). [Source.]
So, would David Blight claim that 90.8% of Americans are powerful and greedy? And who is it that most academic Civil War bloggers accuse of politicizing the Civil War? Projecting? Wow. Of course, these wild, apocalyptic, Chicken Little-like environmental predictions have been made for a very long time. And none of them have come true. It all appears to be yet one more effort to promote more centralized government control.

But if you're really worried, maybe they'll have the Hunley back in service by 2061. LOL. You just can't make this stuff up.

4 comments:

Eddie said...

There is a lot of hate in that Opinionator article

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

What gets me about this nonsense is that so many academic Civil War historians lament the "politicizing of the Civil War" for modern agendas yet, these same people lionize Blight. They're blind to their own hypocrisy.

Mark Snell said...

It really is a shame that Blight has gone down that road. He is a terrific historian--one of the best--and his _Race and Reunion_ is a landmark study that has changed the way we view the aftermath of the Civil War. Historians should stick to history and politicians should stick to modern politics. (Blight has an agent that books all of his appearances and publishing agenda. And Professor Blight's fees are quite high, too.) When I was in grad school at Rutgers in the mid-80s, just about every one of my professors remarked that Reagan would go down in history as the worst US president ever (that's quite a statement considering James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson and Jimmy Carter). I chided my profs--at great risk to my final grades--that time, distance and declassified sources were required before we could make such a judgment. (I guess the student was "teaching" the professors at that point). Now, "history" is judging Reagan quite differently than their negative prophesy. I wasn't a fan of Bill Clinton, but I did not pass historical judgment on his presidency during the time that he was in office. Now, nearly two decades later, I look back on him as a fairly successful executive, despite his moral shortcomings. (Of course, the Republican Revolution forced him back to the middle, but he was smart enough and savvy enough to do so.) I would be interested to hear what you and your readers think.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Hi Mark - of course, this isn't Blight's first time of blatant politicizing of the Civil War. He's written:

"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."

And:

"Both [modern conservatives and the Confederacy) claim their mantle of righteousness in the name of “liberty,” privatization and racial exclusion (one openly, the other using code that keeps it largely a white people’s party). Both vehemently claim the authority of the “Founders.”

http://civilwar150.kansascity.com/articles/civil-war-150-past-present/

"I wasn't a fan of Bill Clinton, but I did not pass historical judgment on his presidency during the time that he was in office. Now, nearly two decades later, I look back on him as a fairly successful executive, despite his moral shortcomings. (Of course, the Republican Revolution forced him back to the middle, but he was smart enough and savvy enough to do so.) I would be interested to hear what you and your readers think."

I never thought I'd see a day when I missed Bill Clinton.