The Right to be Offended by John Crisp

English Professor John Crisp

       Well, I've picked up a newspaper where another English professor is attempting to rewrite our history books yet again. Why should we have history professor's if the English professor's know more about history than everyone else. The name of Mr. Crisp's column is The Right to be Offended in the US and of course it was all about slavery. In Mr. Crisp's column you'll find out that the Sons of Confederate Veterans are in the wrong for teaching what the war was truly over. Let's look at a few things he mentions in his column and see how intelligent Mr. Crisp truly is on Civil War history.

The 1st National Flag of the Confederacy otherwise known as the "Stars and Bars"

The Confederate Battle Flag on the Texas S.C.V. tag

       In Mr. Crisp's column, he is offended by the "notorious Stars and Bars battle flag." These are his words, not mine. Now there never was a "Stars and Bars battle flag. The Confederate 1st National Flag that actually flew over a country was called the Stars and Bars. The Confederate battle flag flew over an army and never flew in any official manner over the government of the Confederate States. I guess actually knowing your history doesn't matter when you write a column as an English professor. 

       Now this idiot goes on to say that because he had an ancestor who owned slaves, it makes him the expert on whether blacks should be offended by the flag. But, he does say that his slave holding ancestors are too removed from him to give him feelings of guilt. Now, it sounds a lot like hypocrisy to me. 

       Now, I've been told that the reason the flag offends is because Ku Klux Klan used the flag in the 1940's. Fair enough, now look at the photograph below and tell me should this flag also offend since the Klan used it before the 1940's. 

This flag offends me because it was used by the Ku Klux Klan

       I'm currently reading Bevin Alexander's new book Such Troops As These. He gives a few reasons that caused the Civil War. Among them is the disagreement on slavery. Is that the only reason? Mr. Alexander explains that the dispute came down to money. This is a direct quote from Bevin Alexander's book:

       "Northern industrialists wanted to create a closed American economy in which only their products would be available. And these products would cost more than British products because American industry was newer and less efficient than British industry. The South was being asked to pay to strengthen Northern industry...and this conflict played an important role in the division of North and South."

      The most shocking thing of all is that Bevin Alexander is a historian, not an English professor. I've said it in blogs before about English professors. They should stick with teaching English, Grammar, etc. and let the historians teach history.