(Liberal Democrat Historian) Doris Kearns Godwin Ruins Gettysburg's 150th Commemoration

American Thinker Magazine ^ | July 2, 2013 | Rick Moran

[drewh]

Godwin turned her speech into a rant about gay marriage and women's rights:

Kearns Goodwin commented on last week's Supreme Court decisions that she called "stunning."

"On the one hand, a critical section of that same 1965 Voting Rights Act which had stood for fifty years was struck down," Kearns Goodwin said. "On the other hand, the struggle to end discrimination against gays and lesbians took a giant step forward."

She compared the gay rights movement to the women's rights and civil rights movements, and then gushed about how privileged she was that she had a "curious love of history" that allowed her to look back and tell stories--if they were her own--about the past.

The closest she came to discussing the Battle of Gettysburg at length was when she mentioned "Stonewall."

But instead of talking about how different Gettysburg could have been had the great Southern General Stonewall Jackson lived to aid Robert E. Lee, Kearns Goodwin instead spoke about the Stonewall gay riots that united the gay community, which she used to discuss how women's rights and civil rights and gay rights were all "human rights" while quoting Robert F. Kennedy's "ripples of hope" speech.

She even compared "Stonewall" to "Selma," linking the gay rights movement and the black civil rights movement.

One would think an historian would jump at the chance to talk about themes relating to the battle and Lincoln's famous speech.

But Kearns Godwin is obviously held in thrall to an ideological view of history - a deterministic notion that bears little ressemblance to reality.

It's a shame, really. There is only one opportunity to get the 150th commemoration right. And Doris Kearns Godwin blew it.

[cradle of freedom]

This is just aother way for the liberals to feel that they will always be “on the right side of history”. barf

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Didn’t this wrinkled monkey commit plagiarism simultaneously, and at the same time, as she was giving LBJ a BJ?

[okie01]

Moreover reading her books has left me unimpressed. She draws illogical conclusions and has a thought process that is typical of the feminist. I find her works dull and uninformative.

As a published "historian", that is the proper test. And she fails it. Unreadable propaganda for a liberal agenda, not history at all.