How history is remembered works both ways. Everyone has heard of Crispus Attucks the mulatto sailor credited as the first American to die for freedom but few have heard of Samuel Gray or James Caldwell both white men. All three were killed on the spot at the Boston Massacre and there is no definitive evidence of who actually died first. Not to take anything away from Attucks but his spot in history is possibly slightly inflated for racial reasons. All three men should be credited as the first ones to die for Liberty.
That is, and always has been, my attitude towards this.
And in my post above, I was going to mention both of those things you pointed out, that other men, non-black men, who had lives and families, died that night but nobody knows their names because they were “melanin-challenged”, and that who the hell knows who of those three died first?
Because that seems to be the shaped history of the Left, for political reasons, that a black man and former slave living in a Northern State just had to be designated the first one killed in the Revolution. They also push hard to make that the “start” of the American Revolution, but it wasn’t. It was another event in a series of events the culminated in the American Revolution.
But they have to make EVERYTHING about race, in the same way the Communists have to make EVERYTHING about The Party.
Is it true?
Saw on Facebook that Crispus Attucks was killed by a ricochet while looting the chemist’s store during the riot...
"More importantly to the media is that the Christianity can’t be portrayed as good... they tend to omit that leading abolitionists were Christians following Christian principles."
This is one of the many aspects of how the left wing historians, the gate keepers, have prevented history from cutting both ways in the last century.
It's one thing for history to remember Crispus Attucks but forget the other named gentlemen just the same when Paul Revere is remembered but Wentworth Cheswell is forgotten. These are accidents. Accidents are the only way it can cut two ways.
What we have today is not accidental. The 1619 Project entirely and completely blames the United States for slavery on these lands even going so far as to blame the U.S. for what the Empire did. There's no two-way cutting about that sort of thing, it's just propaganda that benefits progressivism.
It has been my experience that yes, conservatives recognize the danger posed by journalism in the media. However, there is a blindness to the danger and the threat from the historians. Historians have been manipulating U.S. history to gain progressive ends since the Progressive Era starting in the 1900s. Do we have an MRC? Yes, we do. We do not have an HRC.
We are not prepared to defend our own history.