For blog number four I took a look at the liberal blog Letters from Texas and found an article entitled "Republican outreach to minority voters hits overdrive, seen as wildly successful." In this article author Harold Cooke argues that Phyllis Schlafly is a bigot against Latinos and other minorities yet she will be found in History books, which he seems to take issue with. Harold obviously speaks to both republicans and Latinos in this blog, although I'm certain he also wishes to bring this situation to the eyes of any reader. He first provides a bit of biography on Phyllis, her political position in the republican party and then from there he turns to her importance warranting her Political contributions being required in History books.
While I do not disagree with Cooke's view on her being racist towards minorities and having no problems expressing that racism, I do not agree with his implied idea that her stance has anything to do with whether or not she should belong in a history book. There were many, many, figures in history books who held less-than-popular opinions but that is part of history. Spanish conquistadors had no reservations about landing in American and then conquering and enslaving the native population. Yet, they are a staple of history books and that is because history is not to be written based on what is morally right or wrong. We are obligated to commit the truth to paper however unappealing it may be. I do not personally have a working knowledge of Phyllis's contribution to the history of the Republican party but I would argue that if it is substantial enough to warrant that others read and learn about it, then it should be part of history regardless of her views.
No comments:
Post a Comment