Politically-Correct History/Quotes

Everything About Fiction You Never Wanted to Know.


"We... need better, less offensive history."
—Leslie Knope, Parks and Recreation
"Someone needs to stand up to the experts..."
—The Chairman of the Texas Board of Education[1], "justifying" rewriting American History textbooks with from a Conservative viewpoint.
"The problem with history is that it's not politically correct."
—Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper.

...
Un cammino infausto vecchio e figlio del passato
Di un fantoccio che brama una storia che non c’è
(An old inauspicious path born from the past
A stooge who dreams of a history which never was)

 The purpose of this history of the Revolution is to use the original authorities rather more frankly than has been the practice with our historians. They appear to have thought it advisable to omit from their narratives a great deal which, to me, seems essential to a true picture.
I cannot feel satisfied with any description of the Revolution which treats the desire for independence as a sudden thought, and not a long growth and development, or which assumes that every detail of the conduct of the British government was absurdly stupid, even from its own point of view, and that the loyalists were few in numbers and their arguments not worth considering.

The true history of the American Revolution by Sydney George Fisher

The various colonial regimes were by no means perfect. But to assert that their average quality of government service was anything but far better than either their predecessors, or their successors, is a political distortion of history which I have no trouble at all in comparing to Holocaust denial. Far more people were murdered in decolonization and postcolonial violence than in the Holocaust. Moreover, only a few fringe nutcases deny the Holocaust — whereas anticolonialism is a core tenet of everyone’s college education. Oops.

Well, honestly, I could have DONE without the 2 females about 10 years older than I explaining to each other how powerful female Vikings were and how patriarchy was the fault of Christianity, but I managed to get out without giving them a grand rant so that’s okay. I mean, seriously, what is wrong with “progressives” who continuously project their ideals onto the most unlikely past civilizations? Progressing towards pre-history again?

Sarah A. Hoyt, Cranky Saturday

The BBC did some kind of educational cartoon on Roman Britain and represented “diversity” in terms of someone looking African in the show as representative of “diversity” at the time. The BBC was effectively applying quotas retroactively (I mean, really retroactively). Any dissent from the statistical errors made by the politically correct police is treated as apostasy. Effectively, scholarship is dead in the U.K. [...] Some people backtracked later by saying it is was not common but not impossible, which is where I shout “BS!”

Why couldn't they say that the industrial society started after 1850-1900 or really in 1900? Never mind that my hometown of Pilsen already saw more industrial smoke in the 1860s than in most of the 20th century. It's inconvenient for the "cause" so people need to mask that century and the public is obliged to forget about its existence. There was some murky "pre-history", the pre-industrial paradise when nothing happened; and then the industrial hell came, the ideology says. Needless to say, it's similar to the communists' caricature of the history. There was some evil society before 1948 when everyone was exploiting everyone else for the eternity, you don't need to know any details about that period; and then the paradise and real history started in 1948[2].

Luboš Motl, It's spin to call 1850-1900 "pre-industrial era" [1]
  1. who is not a teacher, but a dentist
  2. in Czechoslovakia