NOT STOLEN: A Great Book that Debunks Anti-Western Revisionism

mikegriffith1

Mike Griffith
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
7,374
Reaction score
4,455
Points
1,085
Location
Virginia
If you can talk or bribe your teenager into reading one book, get them to read Dr. Jeff Fynn-Paul's book 2023 book Not Stolen: The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World. The book thoroughly debunks the anti-Western revisionism about European colonization in the New World and America's founding that has dominated American academia since around 2010.

It is humorous to see liberals here summarily rejecting conservative/moderate scholarship on historical issues with the argument that it is "revisionist" and guilty of "revisionism." Yet, they embrace the drastic and bogus liberal revisionism that paints Europeans as genocidal racists who slaughtered tens of millions of natives and stole their land, and that paints America's founding generation, including George Washington, with the same sleazy tar brush.

You wanna talk about "revisionist" and "revisionism"? The anti-American and anti-Western version of Western history that has come to dominate American academia in the last 15 years is the poster child for scurrilous, baseless revisionism that ignores a huge body of contrary facts, as Dr. Fynn-Paul's book proves.

From the book's introduction on Amazon:


A renowned historian debunks current distortion and myths about European colonialism in the New World and restores much needed balance to our understanding of the past.

Was America really “stolen” from the Indians? Was Columbus a racist? Were Indians really peace-loving, communistic environmentalists? Did Europeans commit “genocide” in the New World? It seems that almost everyone—from CNN to the New York Times to angry students pulling down statues of our founders—believes that America’s history is a shameful tale of racism, exploitation, and cruelty.

In Not Stolen, renowned historian Jeff Fynn-Paul systematically dismantles this relentlessly negative view of U.S. history, arguing that it is based on shoddy methods, misinformation, and outright lies about the past. America was not “stolen” from the Indians but fairly purchased piece by piece in a thriving land market. Nor did European settlers cheat, steal, murder, rape or purposely infect them with smallpox to the extent that most people believe. No genocide occurred—either literal or cultural—and the decline of Native populations over time is not due to violence but to assimilation and natural demographic processes.

Fynn-Paul not only debunks these toxic myths, but provides a balanced portrait of this complex historical process over 500 years. The real history of Native and European relations will surprise you. Not only is this not a tale of shameful sins and crimes against humanity—it is more inspiring than you ever dared to imagine.


To get a good idea of the scope of Dr. Fynn-Paul's research, here are the book's chapter titles:

Chapter 1: Intrepid Explorer or Genocidal Maniac? The Complex Case of Christopher Columbus

Chapter 2: Did Europeans Commit Genocide in the New World?

Chapter 3: Were Europeans Racist?

Chapter 4: Were the Conquistadors Bloodthirsty Zealots?

Chapter 5: Is Europe Guilty of “Settler Colonialism”?

Chapter 6: Were New World Civilizations Equal or Superior to Europe?

Chapter 7: Were Native Americans Naturally Peaceful and Benevolent?

Chapter 8: Were Native Americans Natural Environmentalists?

Chapter 9: Were Native Americans Natural Communists?

Chapter 10: Did the Founders Steal Democracy from Native Americans? III: American Displacement

Chapter 11: Is Thanksgiving Racist?

Chapter 12: Was Pocahontas a Race Traitor?

Chapter 13: Was America Stolen?

Chapter 14: Were the Founding Fathers Anti-Indian?

Chapter 15: Was the Trail of Tears Genocidal?

Chapter 16: Did Europeans Starve, Massacre, or Spread Disease among the Natives?

Chapter 17: Did the Gold Rush Trigger an Indian Genocide?

Chapter 18: Did Europeans Commit Cultural Genocide?

Chapter 19: Is Using Native American Names “Cultural Appropriation”?

Chapter 20: Are Natives Owed Reparations?

Conclusion: Not Stolen: Toward a Balanced History of European Colonization

Dr. Fynn-Paul is a professor of history at Leiden University. To read about his credentials, research, and published works, here's the link to his profile page: Jeffrey Fynn-Paul.
 
Last edited:
LOL....You blew your credibility on the whole "blacks in the Confederacy" thing.

Phew! LOL indeed! You didn't lay a finger on the evidence I presented on black Confederate combat troops. You resorted to a silly argument from silence and fell back on a giant appeal to authority. By "blew your credibility" you really mean "presented evidence I couldn't handle."

You did not address a single item of evidence presented in my article. For instance, you said nothing about Frederick Douglass's public written warning that blacks were serving as combat soldiers in the Confederate army, or Lewis Steiner's detailed report of personally seeing about 3,000 black combat troops in Stonewall Jackson's army while Jackson's force marched through Frederick, Maryland. BTW, Steiner's report was corroborated by Colonel Allberbach's report that his unit encountered black Confederate soldiers at the Battle of Chancellorsville, a battle at which Stonewall Jackson's army was the main Confederate force).

Let me guess what your argument is going to be on Dr. Fynn-Pauls' book: Well, most scholars reject his position, so it must be wrong! Until 2010, the overwhelming majority of scholars rejected the radical leftist revisionism about the European colonists and the founding of America, but, gee, you guys didn't mind embracing that absurd revisionism.
 
If you can talk or bribe your teenager into reading one book, get them to read Dr. Jeff Fynn-Paul's book 2023 book Not Stolen: The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World. The book thoroughly debunks the anti-Western revisionism about European colonization in the New World and America's founding that has dominated American academia since around 2010.

It is humorous to see liberals here summarily rejecting conservative/moderate scholarship on historical issues with the argument that it is "revisionist" and guilty of "revisionism." Yet, they embrace the drastic and bogus liberal revisionism that paints Europeans as genocidal racists who slaughtered tens of millions of natives and stole their land, and that paints America's founding generation, including George Washington, with the same sleazy tar brush.

You wanna talk about "revisionist" and "revisionism"? The anti-American and anti-Western version of Western history that has come to dominate American academia in the last 15 years is the poster child for scurrilous, baseless revisionism that ignores a huge body of contrary facts, as Dr. Fynn-Paul's book proves.

From the book's introduction on Amazon:


A renowned historian debunks current distortion and myths about European colonialism in the New World and restores much needed balance to our understanding of the past.

Was America really “stolen” from the Indians? Was Columbus a racist? Were Indians really peace-loving, communistic environmentalists? Did Europeans commit “genocide” in the New World? It seems that almost everyone—from CNN to the New York Times to angry students pulling down statues of our founders—believes that America’s history is a shameful tale of racism, exploitation, and cruelty.

In Not Stolen, renowned historian Jeff Fynn-Paul systematically dismantles this relentlessly negative view of U.S. history, arguing that it is based on shoddy methods, misinformation, and outright lies about the past. America was not “stolen” from the Indians but fairly purchased piece by piece in a thriving land market. Nor did European settlers cheat, steal, murder, rape or purposely infect them with smallpox to the extent that most people believe. No genocide occurred—either literal or cultural—and the decline of Native populations over time is not due to violence but to assimilation and natural demographic processes.

Fynn-Paul not only debunks these toxic myths, but provides a balanced portrait of this complex historical process over 500 years. The real history of Native and European relations will surprise you. Not only is this not a tale of shameful sins and crimes against humanity—it is more inspiring than you ever dared to imagine.


To get a good idea of the scope of Dr. Fynn-Paul's research, here are the book's chapter titles:

Chapter 1: Intrepid Explorer or Genocidal Maniac? The Complex Case of Christopher Columbus

Chapter 2: Did Europeans Commit Genocide in the New World?

Chapter 3: Were Europeans Racist?

Chapter 4: Were the Conquistadors Bloodthirsty Zealots?

Chapter 5: Is Europe Guilty of “Settler Colonialism”?

Chapter 6: Were New World Civilizations Equal or Superior to Europe?

Chapter 7: Were Native Americans Naturally Peaceful and Benevolent?

Chapter 8: Were Native Americans Natural Environmentalists?

Chapter 9: Were Native Americans Natural Communists?

Chapter 10: Did the Founders Steal Democracy from Native Americans? III: American Displacement

Chapter 11: Is Thanksgiving Racist?

Chapter 12: Was Pocahontas a Race Traitor?

Chapter 13: Was America Stolen?

Chapter 14: Were the Founding Fathers Anti-Indian?

Chapter 15: Was the Trail of Tears Genocidal?

Chapter 16: Did Europeans Starve, Massacre, or Spread Disease among the Natives?

Chapter 17: Did the Gold Rush Trigger an Indian Genocide?

Chapter 18: Did Europeans Commit Cultural Genocide?

Chapter 19: Is Using Native American Names “Cultural Appropriation”?

Chapter 20: Are Natives Owed Reparations?

Conclusion: Not Stolen: Toward a Balanced History of European Colonization

Dr. Fynn-Paul is a professor of history at Leiden University. To read about his credentials, research, and published works, here's the link to his profile page: Jeffrey Fynn-Paul.
G64pvTTWUAAsam2.webp
 
Phew! LOL indeed! You didn't lay a finger on the evidence I presented on black Confederate combat troops. You resorted to a silly argument from silence and fell back on a giant appeal to authority. By "blew your credibility" you really mean "presented evidence I couldn't handle."

You did not address a single item of evidence presented in my article. For instance, you said nothing about Frederick Douglass's public written warning that blacks were serving as combat soldiers in the Confederate army, or Lewis Steiner's detailed report of personally seeing about 3,000 black combat troops in Stonewall Jackson's army while Jackson's force marched through Frederick, Maryland. BTW, Steiner's report was corroborated by Colonel Allberbach's report that his unit encountered black Confederate soldiers at the Battle of Chancellorsville, a battle at which Stonewall Jackson's army was the main Confederate force).

Let me guess what your argument is going to be on Dr. Fynn-Pauls' book: Well, most scholars reject his position, so it must be wrong! Until 2010, the overwhelming majority of scholars rejected the radical leftist revisionism about the European colonists and the founding of America, but, gee, you guys didn't mind embracing that absurd revisionism.
So where are those muster rolls I asked for?

Seeing, reported, just second hand clap trap for those with an agenda.
 
So where are those muster rolls I asked for?

Seeing, reported, just second hand clap trap for those with an agenda.
many blacks served in the Confederacy ... but not because they wanted to ..


AI Overview



Enslaved people did not officially fight as soldiers alongside masters in the Civil War
, but thousands were forced into supporting roles as "body servants," laborers, cooks, and teamsters, often accompanying owners to camp. They were coerced into war labor, not recognized as armed combatants by the Confederacy.
 
many blacks served in the Confederacy ... but not because they wanted to ..

AI Overview

Enslaved people did not officially fight as soldiers alongside masters in the Civil War
, but thousands were forced into supporting roles as "body servants," laborers, cooks, and teamsters, often accompanying owners to camp. They were coerced into war labor, not recognized as armed combatants by the Confederacy.

So your source is AI Overview??? This is worse than just relying on Wikipedia. If you're interested in doing a modicum of actual research on the issue of black Confederate combat soldiers, read my article Black Confederates, Political Correctness, and a Virginia Textbook: Black Soldiers in the Confederate Army.

1srelluc said:
So where are those muster rolls I asked for?
I already answered this flimsy dodge: LINK, LINK.

Seeing, reported, just second hand clap trap for those with an agenda.

Wrong. So you obviously still have not even read my article.

"Those with an agenda"?! Union commanders submitting official battle reports on encountering black Confederate soldiers, reports that were never intended to be seen until after the war? What "agenda" would have led those commanders to fabricate such reports?

Lewis Steiner, the chief of the U.S. Sanitary Commission in the U.S. Army of the Potomac, who matter of factly and in great detail reported seeing some 3,000 black Confederate combat troops who freely mixed in with white Confederate soldiers in Stonewall Jackson's force. His report on black Confederate soldiers was two pages of a 43-page report on the Army of the Potomac's campaign in Maryland. What was his "agenda"?

How about Frederick Douglass, a former slave and a prominent Northern abolitionist, who warned his fellow Northerners that there were blacks serving in the Confederate army as combat troops and that this was "pretty well established"? What possible "agenda" could he have had to tell such a lie?

How about the letters and diary entries authored by Union soldiers, most of which were never intended to be read by anyone but the recipients? What conceivable "agenda" would they have had for fabricating accounts of encountering black Confederate soldiers?
 
Last edited:
The book spends considerable time addressing the "stolen land" narrative and proves it is invalid and is based on gross exaggerations and sometimes outright fiction.

However, the stolen-land narrative is now the dominant view in academia, and any sane, factual research that contradicts the narrative is denounced as racist, white supremacist, and, oh yes, "revisionist." Yet, until the 1970s, the stolen-land story was firmly rejected by the vast majority of scholars as radical, revisionist drivel.
 
Back
Top Bottom