Hyroglyphx writes:
No I am accusing some "historians" for essentially leading others astray by rewriting history. I was just commenting that usually you have two sides of colonial history.
Either the settlers were all wonderful people, slaves didn't mind being slaves, and the settlers were just defending themselves from dem savage injuns.
The other side is the white man (a.k.a. The Devil) whipped slaves all day long just for fun, ate the flesh of natives, and consumed every natural resource.
The truth lies somewhere in between is my point.
I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble ignoring the connection automatically popped up in my head between your statement and Bush's "it's somewhere in between... it's up for debate" statements when asked about evolution and creationism. Let's cut through the bullshit. We all know he was a creationist. But since it was not fashionable or PC to outright deny evolution, instead he made it sound like he's making a compromise.
Your caricaturization of historians are getting tiring. While I'm not a historian myself, I have mentioned many times on here that I'm a history buff and almost declared that as my major back in college a kazillion years ago because I have a passionate love affair with history (still not sure if the wife approves). Yes, the truth lies somewhere in between the two caricatured positions you summarized. Usually, caricaturizing a position is a sign that you lean towards a position that is not PC.