TexasCHLforum.com

Important edit: I have learned, since posting this, that not all of the scholars presenting at the conference and participating in panels are far leftists. There are some of more moderate views and the radical leftists are a minority. There is, however, a complete lack of representation of what is called the "revisionist" view (but is more properly called the conventional view.) The true revisionist view is one that seeks to portray Ho as a benevolent nationalist leader when in fact he was a brutal communist dictator and the United States as an imperialist warmonger when in fact the US was welcomed by the South Vietnamese in their unsuccessful struggle to avoid a communist dictatorship. The conference is therefore still flawed but not as deeply flawed as I first thought. We still have a lot of work to do to provide balance.

Especially if you served in country, you need to know about this. The Vietnam Center and Archive at Texas Tech University was founded by local veterans of the war who wanted to establish a place to store and care for memorabilia, documents and memories of the war. A substantial amount of its funding has come from veterans who have happily supported its purpose and donated material to it. Throughout the years, from its founding to the present, the Center has held conferences and symposia to discuss the latest scholarship about the war. The conferences and symposia have been attended not only by scholars but also by Vietnam vets interested in preserving the history of the war and correcting false information that has arisen over the years.

This year, in September, the Center is hosting another conference. This one takes place during the official 13 year long celebration of the 50th Anniversary of the war, which, in the words of the DoD is to "honor and pay tribute to Vietnam Veterans and their families during the 50th Anniversary of the war." The conference will be held in Washington, D.C. and is sponsored by the US National Archives. The theme of the conference is 1963, a seminal year in the conflict and a crucial point in the direction the war took. There is much disagreement among scholars as to the significance and impact of the deposal of Ngo Diem and his later assassination as well as Kennedy's assassination.

The Center changed Directors in 2007, and the new Director, Dr. Steve Maxner, seems to be taking the Center in a leftward direction. All 30 of the scholars invited to speak and serve on panels are far left scholars or "moderates" who have consistently denigrated the war and its participants. These scholars unanimously hold the so-called "orthodox" historical view that the war was illegal, its participants were criminals and the war had nothing to do with communism or the domino theory.

The foremost scholar of the so-called "revisionist" view, Dr. Mark Moyar, had not only not been invited but is being told he can attend as a participant but cannot speak or serve on a panel. This will be the first time in the history of the Center that no views in opposition to the far left so-called "orthodox" interpretation of the war will be invited.

Dr. Maxner has recently been deluged by letters of protest from Vietnam vets, some of whom are recognized scholars on the war but has steadfastly refused to include any revisionist scholars or even admit that the scholars that he has invited have any bias at all. This conference, in its present makeup, would be comparable to conducting a conference on American Black History and only inviting white members of the KKK to "debate" the historical events. Imagine discussing the seminal year of the Vietnam conflict with a room full of hippies and not one single person who participated in the war or has a different perspective on the war. The outcome is virtually guaranteed not to "honor and pay tribute to" those of us who served.

I may have further action items in the future. For now, there are some things you can do:
1) Contact every Vietnam vet you know and point them to this exposition of this travesty (or copy it and email it to them)
2) Contact Governor Perry and express your disapproval of the current configuration of this conference
3) Contact your Texas Senator and Representative and voice your disapproval
3) Contact your Senators and Congressman regarding the conference and express your displeasure that an event purporting to honor and respect you will instead portray you as a war criminal and is being funded with your tax dollars

Please do not contact anyone at the Center or at Texas Tech. We are already in contact with them on an academic level. The time for out and out protest is not yet. If we cannot make changes in the conference while working within the system, we may have to fill the conference with vets opposing these views and turn the conference into a major news event.

Wow, what a bunch of jack wagons.

I dropped your post over at professionalsoldiers.com

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/for ... hp?t=41836" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SF18C wrote:I dropped your post over at professionalsoldiers.com

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/for ... hp?t=41836" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank you.

I'm involved with a small group of Vietnam vets that are very active within the academic arena in historical studies. The group is made up of active duty officers and enlisted as well as retired and vets who only served briefly. There's SEALS and MACV/SOG guys and Marines and Army that served in Vietnam. We're putting pressure on the President of Texas Tech and the Chancellor of the TT system. We're also contacting the advisory boards which are made up of a great number of vets as well.

The pressure from the political side will make them realize that this is not going to go away and they had better pay attention to our complaints. The Director has so far stonewalled us, but he doesn't live in a vacuum, and there are other ways to get him to change his mind. Adding the political pressure from vets all over the country will turn the heat up sufficiently to wake up those he reports to that something is going on that they need to know about and deal with.

Some of the current academics speaking at the conference are attending for the first time. They have always refused to participate in the past because they said the conference was too conservative. (Which means their lies would be challenged by knowledgeable people so they didn't care to engage.) Now they're all coming because they feel comfortable that their lies will not be challenged. They are in for a big surprise.

One of the invited scholars at the conference is Dr. Marilyn Young. This is her bio.

The thesis, and subsequent book, Rhetoric of Empire, put 19th century American policy towards China in an international context, examining the Notes as the emerged out of the crisis of the Boxer Rebellion. Her subsequent scholarship has had a dual track: to understand both American imperialism and those who fought against it, at home and abroad.

Not exactly what one would call a balanced view. Of the 30 scholars invited to the conference, only one is a Vietnam vet, and he was a military historian and never saw combat. One other scholar served in the CIA.

Dr. Young has steadfastly refused invitations to the conferences, until this year, complaining that they were "too conservative".

If you're read this post before, please read my important note that I've added.

Hello, My name is Steve Maxner and I am the director of the Vietnam Center and Archive at Texas Tech University. With respect, there are many incorrect statements contained in the initial posting and I would like to clarify a few items.

First and foremost, as I have repeatedly informed the critics of this conference going back to April 16, this conference is not an official part of the DOD Commemoration programs. While we were referencing this conference as part of our work as an education partner in that program, on Monday morning of this week, I instructed my staff to remove all such references because it became obvious that certain individuals were trying to use that connection as a reason to protest the speakers who have been included on the agenda. I have already informed the DOD Commemoration office of my decision to remove those references as I do not wish any anger being directed toward me to be misdirected toward them and their excellent office. But there was never, I say again – never – any DOD commemoration funding or US federal tax dollars being spent to support this event. And, again, I made that very plainly clear to all involved in this discussion going back to April 16. To claim otherwise is utterly false and I have the email records that prove it to be false.

So, to reiterate once more, this is not a DOD Commemoration event. This is a university-organized academic conference on the US and Vietnam during the year 1963.

Also, the blanket characterization of the 2013 conference speakers as all being on the “political left” and having an anti-Diem, anti-GVN, or anti-war bias is not in any way accurate or true. While some who are critical of this conference may wish to pigeonhole contemporary Vietnam War scholars as being either on the political left or on the political right, that is an over-simplification. The September 2013 conference agenda reflects a range of interpretations regarding the events leading up to the end of 1963 and the vast majority of the scholars presenting are well-respected and moderate in their views. In addition, this conference is free and open to the public and we welcome veterans, students, scholars, and anyone who wishes to join us to do so and to ask the questions they feel are important to contribute to this ongoing discussion. No one is attempting to silence anyone's voice or perspective. This conference is about sharing some of the most recent scholarship about the US in Vietnam as it pertains to the year 1963 and we want veterans and the public to be a part of it and to join in this discussion. With that said, we are also still looking at the possibility of adding some additional speakers to the conference agenda, something I have also said repeatedly to our most ardent critics. At the same time, this academic conference is a collaboration and, when you collaborate with someone, you don’t issue orders to them. I will continue to coordinate and collaborate with the conference co-organizers to discuss adding other speakers. That will take some time for us to accomplish and I appreciate your patience. But that is not "stonewalling" and I will not be bullied or threatened into adding any one specific person to the agenda just because someone is demanding that they be added. Also, I will not act according to the arbitrary deadlines that other people are attempting to impose upon me. I will do what I think is best based on the timeline I determine is necessary for us to follow.

Lastly, I am not new to the Vietnam Center and Archive. I have worked in this wonderful project for more than 13 years (and before that I served proudly for six years on active duty in the US Army at Fort Bragg, NC, and Fort Benning, GA). I have organized 11 past conferences and events that have featured approximately 500 speakers. To see the breadth of those events and speakers, which have included all possible interpretations about the Vietnam War, please visit the following website: http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/events/#past I am responsible for the events starting in March 2005. In addition, I have also interviewed hundreds of Vietnam veterans for our oral history project and I have attended approximately 50 Vietnam veteran reunions throughout the US and have personally met with thousands of Vietnam veterans to invite them to participate in our project - all as part of our mission and commitment to help preserve the history of Vietnam veteran service and sacrifice in Southeast Asia with the honor, respect, and dignity it deserves.

I am available and very happy to meet with anyone who wishes to discuss this conference in a rational and civil manner but the very strong emotions that many people are feeling and expressing are being fueled by erroneous statements. It is my sincere hope that you will feel as much of an obligation to share the information I provide here with everyone who received the misleading message above.

Very respectfully,
Stephen Maxner, Ph.D.
Director, Vietnam Center and Archive
steve.maxner@ttu.edu

Hello again, I am compelled to add some additional information to my previous message of yesterday, April 25, 2013.

I do appreciate that Mr. Paul Schmehl, aka "Bald Eagle" and the gentleman who originated this discussion thread above, has made some significant changes to his original message; however, his above posting even as edited still contains a lot of erroneous and misleading information that requires correcting.

While I do not know on a personal level every presenter who will speak at our 2013 conference, those with whom I am personally familiar have never expressed anything resembling what Mr. Schmehl states regarding Ho Chi Minh, communism, the U.S., the GVN, or RVN.

Also, I have never heard a single speaker ever refer to Vietnam veterans as a group of war criminals. Even if there was someone so horribly misinformed that they would make such a terrible statement, it would never go unchallenged in my presence let alone at one of our Vietnam Center conferences. If someone ever did make such an absurd and hateful comment such as that, I would be the first to stand up and challenge them. That war crimes happened in Vietnam is a matter of the official military record but to translate that into a blanket indictment of all of our Vietnam veterans is as repugnant to me as I hope it is to anyone else reading this. I have always believed very strongly and stated both publicly and privately that I know the overwhelming majority of our soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen served with honor and discipline in Vietnam and have continued to serve our great nation in the same way as private citizens. To take this a step further, I have always publicly and privately fought against the stereotype of the “maladjusted Vietnam veteran.” All of the Vietnam veterans I have ever met are remarkable and honorable men and women who are important contributors to our communities and our country. The speakers with whom I am familiar share these feelings and are as respectful of our nation’s veterans as anyone else I know.

This leads me to question another aspect of the original message from Mr. Schmehl. Does what I just expressed in the above paragraph, which is something I have expressed publicly and repeatedly over the past 13 years since I joined the Vietnam Center and Archive (and I am stating very proudly again here today), does any of that reflect “the leftward direction” Mr. Schmehl mentions above?

With respect to the notion that any specific school of thought will not be represented at this conference, again, this is flatly not correct. The selected speakers do reflect the entire range of interpretations about the events of 1963. That includes scholars who agree that the U.S. involvement in the coup of 1963 against Ngo Dinh Diem was a grave mistake. It includes scholars who agree that Ngo Dinh Diem was doing the best he could under very challenging and difficult circumstances. It includes scholars who believe that U.S. policy makers in 1963 were honorable people who acted in good faith as they believed U.S. involvement in Vietnam to be in our collective national and international security interests as part of the Cold War. It includes scholars who believe that U.S. military advisors were serving in Vietnam with honor and dedication and were doing the best they could to train the ARVN forces to fight for themselves against the Viet Cong/NLF. No interpretation of these events will in any way be quashed or left out of this conference and discussion and to say otherwise is absolutely false. Further, since this event is free and open to the public, we are inviting, welcoming, hope, and fully expect to have an audience composed of veterans, participants, scholars, students, and the interested public, all of whom will be invited to ask questions and join in the discussion. How is this in any way reflective of anything biased, one-sided, or “a leftward direction?”

Finally, Dr. Mark Moyar has been invited to attend this conference and to participate as a member of the audience. He has never been told that he cannot speak in that capacity. When the floor opens for questions from the audience, Dr. Moyar is free to be the first in line at the microphone to ask the first question. In addition, while Dr. Moyar might not have been invited to this one conference to be a formal presenter, he has been invited to and has spoken at a number of our past conferences in that capacity to include doing so at my personal invitation. I have already extended to Dr. Moyar an invitation to organize a panel and provide a formal presentation at our 8th Triennial Vietnam Center Symposium that will take place in the spring of 2014, not even six months after the September 2013 conference. How can any of this be perceived by anyone as an attempt to silence someone’s voice?

As before, I can only hope that those who have felt so strongly and who have taken the time to copy and email all of the misinformation initially introduced here by Mr. Schmehl and anyone who has thought it necessary to write to members of congress or other officials based on that erroneous and false information, I implore you, please have the courtesy and decency to now share with those same people what I provide you here and in my previous post. The honorable men and women and Vietnam veterans whom I know as friends and acquaintances would do nothing less.

Thank you and very respectfully,

Steve Maxner
Director, Vietnam Center and Archive
steve.maxner@ttu.edu

For the record, Dr. Maxner has been quite patient in the face of a blizzard of criticism from Vietnam vets.

However, his two posts here have some mischaracterizations (I won't call them lies or falsehoods like he calls mine) that I must correct.

stevemaxner wrote:First and foremost, as I have repeatedly informed the critics of this conference going back to April 16, this conference is not an official part of the DOD Commemoration programs. While we were referencing this conference as part of our work as an education partner in that program, on Monday morning of this week, I instructed my staff to remove all such references because it became obvious that certain individuals were trying to use that connection as a reason to protest the speakers who have been included on the agenda.

I have no reason to believe that Dr. Maxner is misrepresenting what took place, but I was not involved in those discussions. When I first got involved, the DoD 50th Commemoration was listed on the website as a sponsor for the event. Since the commemoration prominently states as its mission "to honor and pay tribute to the Vietnam vets and their families" I took umbrage with the fact that the conference did not support that mission and in fact undermined it. After consideration, Dr. Maxner had the reference removed from the website, and I thanked him for that.

stevemaxner wrote:But there was never, I say again – never – any DOD commemoration funding or US federal tax dollars being spent to support this event. And, again, I made that very plainly clear to all involved in this discussion going back to April 16. To claim otherwise is utterly false and I have the email records that prove it to be false.

I will accept at face value Dr. Maxner's claim that the DoD is not a sponsor. He removed the reference from the website, and I am satisfied with his decision to do so. However, to characterize the conference as not being supported by your tax dollars conceals the fact that the conference will be held at the US National Archives (linked previously), whose facilities the conference will be using for 2 and 1/2 days and which is still listed on his website as a sponsor of the event. Unless Dr. Maxner wants to state for the record that the Center is paying the Archives for the use of the space, your tax dollars are subsidizing the conference in the form of a contribution in kind. This is often done in academia. Conferences are held at universities, and the hosting university provides the facilities, the audio visual equipment, the supporting staff, the electricity and the computer network at no cost to the conference attendees. Those things all must be paid for by someone, and in this case, you are paying for them.

stevemaxner wrote:Also, the blanket characterization of the 2013 conference speakers as all being on the “political left” and having an anti-Diem, anti-GVN, or anti-war bias is not in any way accurate or true. While some who are critical of this conference may wish to pigeonhole contemporary Vietnam War scholars as being either on the political left or on the political right, that is an over-simplification. The September 2013 conference agenda reflects a range of interpretations regarding the events leading up to the end of 1963 and the vast majority of the scholars presenting are well-respected and moderate in their views.

To give you an idea how moderate the academy is, Mark Moyar, who graduated summa cum laude from Harvard and earned his Doctorate in History from Cambridge University and who has written the seminal "revisionist" work on the Vietnam War, Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965, can't even get a job in academics. He's employed by the DoD as a historian. Prior to that he worked at the U.S. Marine Corps University. Not one university in the United States will hire him. They prattle on about diversity and intellectual freedom, but where the rubber meets the road, they treat conservative scholars like they have bubonic plague.

I work in academe. I have no doubt that the scholars he refers to are well respected and moderate in their views - in academe. But the academy, for the most part, is so far to the left that moderate does not have the same meaning that it does to you and me. Surveys have shown that over 72% of academics vote for Democrats exclusively and self describe as liberals. A moderate, in that milieu, would be someone who once considered voting for a Republican. And as Moyar's career to date demonstrates, if you are a conservative and you're willing to speak out, you will be banished from the ivory halls forever.

Let me introduce you to two of the scholars on the panels; Marilyn Young and John Prados. Both have praised a new book written by Nick Turse and titled Kill Anything That Moves; the Real American War In Vietnam. Turse's book claims that atrocities and war crimes were routinely committed in Vietnam by troops in every area and supported as US policy by all levels of command. I invite you to click on the link and read what Marilyn Young and John Prados wrote. You will also note that many prominent citizens on the left have praised Turse's work as well. Those who served in Vietnam take great offense to such characterizations of their service. Marilyn Young, by the way, has never before attended a Vietnam Center conference, complaining that they were "too conservative". She has accepted an invitation this year, which I find troubling in and of itself.

Nick Turse is not a scholar, and his book is not a scholarly work. It's absolute falsehood. Any scholar with an ounce of integrity would immediately condemn Turse's effort to portray American troops as murderers, torturers and rapists. Two "scholars" who did exactly the opposite will have a place of honor equal to all the others at the conference. I'll leave it to your judgment to decide whether I have "lied" about what's going on.

According to the academy, the "orthodox" interpretation of the war is that Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist who was trying to unite his people, the US was wrong to insert itself into an internal civil matter and the domino theory was fantasmagoric or an excuse made up by the US to justify entering the war. The "revisionist" view is held by those who attempt to set the record straight with facts; Ho was a committed communist who slaughtered more than 2 million of his own people, the US was welcomed by the South Vietnamese in their struggle against communism, and the domino theory was proven true when both Laos and Cambodia fell to the communists resulting in an horrific loss of life.

This is quite similar to what's going on with the global warming theory. To the academy it's "settled science". To the "revisionists" who point out that the earth has cooled over the past 18 years and the climatological models have all failed to accurately predict what's going on the academy has nothing but scorn and derision.

I have asked Dr. Maxner to name one scholar of the 30 speaking at the conference who would be considered a "revisionist" about the war. He has not done so. Perhaps there are some, and he has chosen not to tell me. I leave that to your judgment as well.

stevemaxner wrote:I have never heard a single speaker ever refer to Vietnam veterans as a group of war criminals.

That is most unfortunate. There have been many, from Jane Fonda and John Kerry to Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and many others. The lies continue today, as Nick Turse demonstrates, and the effusive praise for Turse's lies continue from those on the left who refuse to admit the truth; American troops served honorably and professionally in Vietnam, there was no policy to even harass Vietnamese civilians much less rape and murder them, and, while atrocities did happen, they were by no means the norm or even acceptable to the average soldier in Vietnam.

What Dr. Maxner seems blissfully unaware of is the despicable treatment that Vietnam vets received by their fellow Americans when they returned from Vietnam because the communist lies were, instead of being refuted, repeated by the media until Americans thought, well they must be true. Far too many in academe have taken the word of liars at face value and called those who tell the truth liars. The first rule of doing research on Vietnam should be to request a DoD 214 from the DoD. The second rule of research should be to verify a veteran's claims of having served in a certain location or at a certain time. Far too many people who claim to have served in Vietnam never did so. Far too many who did (and it's a very small minority of the total who served) have exaggerated their service or their claims about atrocities. Yet "scholars" take these claims at face value and reject the voluminous records of investigations that prove otherwise.

stevemaxner wrote:Finally, Dr. Mark Moyar has been invited to attend this conference and to participate as a member of the audience.

What Dr. Maxner says is true. What he doesn't mention is that audience members may ask questions and challenge assertions, but they don't get to take over the microphone and refute the claims of other scholars as panel members do. Being an audience member places you at a distinct disadvantage to the panel members, and Dr. Maxner knows that.

So I ask him once again, for the record, is there even ONE revisionist scholar on ANY panel?

I believe Dr. Maxner's invitation to contact him is sincere. We need more Vietnam veterans to come forward and share their stories, adding to the oral history that Dr. Maxner is compiling at the Center. His work is vital to the preservation of a true history of what took place in the war.

Please don't complain to him about the conference, however. He knows the issues we have articulated, and he will make whatever decision he makes in due time.

Thanks to Mr. Schmehl for his posting. While this ongoing question of orthodox v. revisionism is still being raised as a major issue, as I have stated repeatedly, this is a gross oversimplification of the state of Vietnam War scholarship today and has been outdated for decades. The major issues that will be discussed at this conference and interpretations of those issues are all receiving a fair representation. That one scholar is not participating in a conference does not mean that the views he or she would voice will not be voiced by others. And I respectfully disagree that audience participation is not effective at challenging major issues at an academic conference. On the contrary, an articulate scholar should be able to challenge an academic conference presentation using several sentences as preamble followed by a question. I have seen it happen more times than I can count.

Regarding the issue of Democrats v. Republicans in academia - I am not sure what the point is. Are we implying that the only way for an academic conference to have legitimacy is for us to poll the pool of potential participants and make sure we have a fair representation based on political party affiliation? Or should we merely do this based on those scholars who are so obviously wearing their politics on their sleeves? Would that not, on its face, constitute the purposeful and intentional politicization of a conference? Should we endeavor to do the same with regard to other social and economic metrics or should we only focus on political affiliation? My point here is that there is no legitimacy in raising this as an issue for an academic conference. Selecting conference speakers should never be about their personal political convictions or affiliations. None of the conference speakers were selected to make presentations because of any other reason except that they are excellent scholars who will contribute productively and positively to this discussion.

Regarding the issue of "speakers" who have referred to Vietnam veterans as war criminals, I thought it was clear that I was referring to the "speakers" who are involved in our 2013 conference. I was not referring to every single person in history who might have made such a terrible and irresponsible statement. We have not invited Jane Fonda, John Kerry, Noam Chomsky, or Howard Zinn to speak at this conference, although those who are still living may certainly join us as audience participants if they so choose.

Also, Nick Turse IS NOT presenting at this conference. I am not sure why so much time is devoted above to his most recent book except it is another example of using something completely unrelated to this conference in an attempt to manipulate and elicit an emotional response from readers. He is not presenting at this conference and there is no legitimate reason to focus on him and his book when discussing this conference.

Regarding hosting this event at the US National Archives, a public facility, I respectfully offer that this public space is most certainly an appropriate venue for this academic conference that is featuring some of the most prominent Vietnam War scholars in the country, to include Bernath Prize and Pulitzer Prize winning scholars. The people who started this email and web campaign have had to repeatedly retract false and misleading statements that have been inappropriately emailed or posted online and then forwarded over and over by individuals who are being emotionally manipulated through that false information. If one looks at the first message and compares that to what appears here now, they are scarcely the same in either tone or content. In the face of the information being provided by me and others, they have made those profound changes and I am very grateful for that. But when combined with my own thirteen-year track record of honoring our nation’s veterans, my record of inclusiveness at our conferences and events, and the absence of any political bias whatsoever in my actions as director of this amazing project at Texas Tech, I am left wondering how it is possible or in any way appropriate that any residual outrage regarding this matter is legitimately being directed toward me, the Vietnam Center, or the US National Archives.

Respectfully,

Steve Maxner
Director, Vietnam Center and Archive

I am happy to report that changes have been made to the conference. A new panel has been added, and the order of the panels has been changed. The new panel is:

10:30 AM: Panel 2: Perspectives: Participant recollections about the events of 1963

Panel Chair: Stephen Maxner, Texas Tech University
Ambassador Bui Diem, RVN Ambassador to the U.S.
Rufus Philips, U.S. Agency for International Development
Robert Miller, U.S. Department of State (Retired)

This is an encouraging change. Unfortunately, the execrable Marilyn Young and John Prados are still part of the conference, but I suppose it would be difficult to unring that bell.

The way to force accountability in the academy is to threaten funding, plain and simple (spoken by the son of two ultra-liberal Caltech professors (from the Vietnam War Era), who lived in that environment for a good many years). A letter of explanation detailing all the facts in the matter and sent to the university's major donors and alumni would probably threaten funding enough to force some accountability.

The problem that academicians in the liberal arts face is that, outside of the protections of universities and the institution of tenure, there is no real demand for what they have to sell......unless they can write a book or get paid to lecture. When department funding faces cuts, the institution can either shift funding from an over-funded department (problematic, because in that department's view, they are not over-funded), or they can cut staff. That is not to say that an education in history would have no value to say...a pre-law student; and that is not to say that history as a field of study is not important. History is, in fact, my favorite subject. But, it isn't particularly important to a civil engineering firm or a grocery store chain. When newly minted professors who were raised on a steady diet of America haters like Howard Zinn (yes, I've read his book....it made me puke) and Edward Said begin to crap on the actual facts of history as experienced by the people who lived it at ground level instead of from some ivory tower, that will not square with the values of many if not most of the people whose major financial support make possible the cushy little fiefdoms occupied by these marxist sock puppets.

Other than that, I have no opinion.

American history has all ready been rewritten . You know about 15 years ago I was always saying 'it's coming' , I never say that now because it's already here .