Historical Revisionism: Rewriting History For All the Wrong Reasons? (Updated and reposted from 9/29/15)

"Historical revisionism involves either the legitimate scholastic re-examination of existing knowledge about a historical event, or the illegitimate distortion of the historical record... which—if it constitutes the denial of historical crimes—is also sometimes called negationism."

-- Wikipedia, "Historical revisionism (negationism)"

 

I first thought it would seem trivial and small for me to address "historical revisionism" for my own selfish purpose, but, what the hell? I'm going to address comic book revisionism.  It really pisses me off.  Comic books, really?  Yes, well, is this really important, in the greater scheme of things, with all else going on in the world of today?  I think if one were to open their mind to the bigger picture, yes, yes it is.

Let me give you a bit of real history.  Nick Fury (you know him as an agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.) has been around since 1963 when he first showed up in Marvel's, Nick Fury and His Howling Commandos.  

Samuel L. Jackson has been playing Nick Fury in all the new cinematic "Avengers" series.  No doubt you've taken note that he is black.  I think it is good that we have men of color starring in strong, leading roles as heroes for our young people to emulate.  The original Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. is shown in the picture to the left.  My obvious concern here is, that Nick Fury is not black... and never was.  So why is our fictional heroes being portrayed differently, alternate universe notwithstanding?  I think Kenneth McManus explains it very well:

"The overt display of racism came from one of my friends, a blond-haired, blue-eyed boy who lived across the street from us. During an imaginary game of “airplane” in my house, said friend and I were sitting in the cockpit of our aircraft: two chairs situated in front of my brother’s chest-of-drawers. When I mentioned that it was my turn to pilot the plane, he replied that I couldn’t, "because Negroes aren’t heroes.” He then challenged me to name black people who could be deemed heroic. I could only name one—Martin Luther King. My paucity of candidates seemed to reinforce his point; in addition, Martin King’s type of valor didn’t resonate with seven-year old boys who idolized cinematic heroes such as John Wayne, Charlton Heston, Lee Van Cleef and Burt Lancaster: tough guys who settled differences with guns, knives and fists. I didn’t respond in kind and ask him to name any white heroes, somehow sensing that he carried a plethora of white men in his cultural arsenal who could fit our narrow perception of a heroic ideal. Following my initial surprise at my friend’s comment, I remember feeling a burning sense of shame at my lack of a retort to his challenge."

-- Kenneth McManus

"Our narrow perception of a heroic ideal."  We need more heroes of color, plain and simple.  The story McManus relates, notwithstanding, I think cinema and literature has grown lazy and too damned eager to please the PC police simply to fill their coffers.  It is even more disturbing that minorities allow this laziness at their expense.  Let us develop some new minority heroes, heroes of color, and leave my heroes alone.  This is not a matter of historical revisionism, this is historical negationism.  The next thing we will see is a black Captain Ahab, or black Rhett Butler, neither of which will make any sense in historical context, but, when has "history" ever been sacred and immune from change due to political correctness?  I could see Hollywood sending in Will Smith as Clint Eastwood's replacement for Inspector Callahan, or Tom Cruise in a remake of Shaft which would also require rewriting the well-known theme song, but both of those would be wrong for me on several levels.  Do you think its wrong?  "Well do ya, punk?"

Let's take a look at the "historical" Nick Fury, according to Marvel:

Son of World War I pilot Jack Fury, Nick Fury became a legendary hero in the early years of World War II, taking missions into Europe alongside his friend Red Hargrove, under the command of Lt. Samuel Sawyer. During a mission in Holland, Fury, Hargrove and Sawyer befriended circus strongman Timothy "Dum-Dum" Dugan who became a close friend. Hargrove was killed in the attack on Pearl Harbor that led the US to officially enter the war on December 7, 1941, Fury fought the Nazis in Northern Africa, then was reunited with Captain Sawyer, who made Sgt. Fury the leader of the US Rangers’ First Attack Squad, soon nicknamed the “Howling Commandos” for their boisterous battle cry. Dugan served as Fury’s second-in-command and became his closest friend. The Howlers occasionally worked alongside Captain America (Steve Rogers) and Bucky (James Barnes), who became significant allies. During one mission, Fury’s left eye was damaged by a grenade and his lack of medical care eventually aggravated the wound. At one point, Professor Berthold Sternberg gave Fury the “Infinity Formula,” which retarded Fury’s aging process, although it required him to take regular injections to stay alive. Late in the war, Fury joined the OSS and with the war’s end joined their post-war CIA agency.

--  http://marvel.com/universe/Fury,_Nick#ixzz3n2MNRmmh

Samuel L. Jackson, really?  Put into the historical "racial" context of the day, I think not.  But people love to rewrite history to reflect a kinder, gentler story, whether it reflects the truth or not.  But, they excuse this by claiming the "alternate universe" copout.  

In the case of fictional heroes the powers that be, in no way showing any heroic qualities, have deemed it proper to rip the hero away from one generation in order to placate another.  Is this wrong?  Hell yes!  But, more to the point it evidences laziness and a total lack of creativity on the part of Marvel, and any others that can't seem to come up with quality role models without stealing someone else's culture.  Alternate universe, my ass.  

What should be of concern to the black community is that, I'm pretty sure, these decisions are not being made by people of color.  I remember hearing from the black community when white kids were trying to dress and act black, that they needed to "stop trying to be black" and go find their own culture and "stop hijacking ours."  Well, the same could be said of changing whites to black in fictional culture, go find your own heroes, like the "Black Panther."  Personally, I think people of color should be more concerned about this trend than I am, as it is just another divisive tactic, a way to subtly drive a wedge between two cultures.  Where does it stop?  By the way, the Black Panther rocks! 

"We do our students a disservice when we scrub history clean of unpleasant truths," Jones said "and when we present an inaccurate view of the past that promotes a simple-minded, ideologically driven point of view."

-- Jacqueline Jones, chairwoman of the University of Texas' History Department 

As an aside, I grew up thinking Jesus was white.  I don't mean Caucasian, I mean go outside, get a sunburn, milky skinned, unable to exist in the desert without contracting skin cancer, lily white.  Look at all of the paintings done of Jesus until just recently.  The Catholic nuns at school sure didn't clarify the misconception for me.  Is it any wonder people mistakenly thought Jesus was Caucasian?  Somewhere along the line, our depictions of Christ became more realistic, and more historically accurate, and those factual changes to our views of Christ, and the Bible, continue today as more archaeological evidence surfaces.  We exercised revisions of who Christ was due to good historical evidence through "legitimate scholastic re-examination of existing knowledge about a historical event."  When we change, for this reason, it is a good thing.  To change for any other reason is simply "the illegitimate distortion of the historical record," even if we do it to fictional characters.  

"As I see it, Historical revisionism, if we allow it, can be one way of saying the Nazis really weren't all that bad.  Historical negationism is saying the Holocaust never happened.  Historical negationism is a way to replace who we are with someone we don't know in order to become something someone else wants, and that just pisses me off."

When you distort historical reality you do everyone a disservice.  So why do we do it?  I see it as crime as old as sin... and probably older.  It is all about believable bullshit, political or religious correctness, and controlling the minds of everyone else.  As I see it, historical revisionism, if we allow it, can be one way of saying the Nazis really weren't all that bad.  Historical negationism is a way of saying the Holocaust never happened.  Historical negationism is a way to replace who we are with someone we don't know in order to become something someone else wants, and that just pisses me off.  It should anger all of us.  I will not be indoctrinated.

I suppose changing history in this way beats burning books as in literary classics Fahrenheit 451 or 1984, both of which I'm very surprised our socialist educational system hasn't banned, but then, maybe they have.  After all, Dr. Seuss just took a hit.  I see banning literary classics from our children's education as an ongoing way of controlling the youth of tomorrow by ensuring their minds are molded to one point of view, regardless of history.  Again, I hate indoctrination.  Hitler loved it.

But, then, maybe I'm wrong... and George Orwell was really onto something.

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” 

-- George Orwell, "1984"

Editor's Note

(Re: disclaimer cum "get out of jail free" card)

Before you go getting your panties in a bunch, it is essential to understand that this is just an opinion site and, as such, can be subjected to scrutiny by anyone with a differing opinion. It doesn't make either opinion any more right or wrong than the other. An opinion, presented in this context, is a way of inciting others to think and, hopefully, to form opinions of their own, if they haven't already done so. This is also why, occasionally, I will present an "opinion" just to stir an emotional pot. Where it may sound like I agree with the statements made, I'm more interested in getting others to consider an alternate viewpoint. 

It is my fervent hope that we keep open and active minds when reading opinions and while engaging in peaceful and constructive discussion, in an arena of mutual respect, concerning those opinions put forth. After over twenty years with military intelligence, I have come to believe engaging each other in this manner and in this arena is the way we will learn tolerance and respect for differing beliefs, cultures, and viewpoints.

We all fall from grace, some more often than others; it is part of being human. God's test for us is what we learn from the experience, and what we do afterward.

Pastor Tony spent 22 years with the United States Air Force Intelligence as a planner, analyst, briefer, instructor, and, finally, a senior manager. He spent 17 years, following his service career, working with the premier, world-renowned, Western Institutional Review Board helping to protect the rights of human subjects involved in pharmaceutical research.

Ordained 1n 2013 as an "interfaith" minister, he founded the Congregation for Religious Tolerance in response to intolerance shown by Christians toward peaceful Islam. As the weapon for his war on intolerance he chose the pen, and wages his "battle" in the guise of the Congregation's official online blog, The Path, of which he is both author and editor. "The Path" offers a vehicle for commentary and guidance concerning one's own personal, spiritual, path toward peace and the final destination for us all. He currently resides in Pass Christian, Mississippi, where he volunteered as the lead chaplain at a regional medical center.

Feel free to contact Pastor Tony:  tolerantpastor@gmail.com