In a review of a recent book about George Armstrong Custer (1839-1876), someone named Tom Carson writes:
Today, Custer has long since become an embarrassment to educated white Americans. But the effort we've put into debunking him amounts to admitting we're stuck with him. From the Goldilocks hairdo he'd actually rid himself of before Little Bighorn to the final, almost certainly inaccurate, tableau of The Last White Man Standing as the "hostiles" close in, he's the horse's ass we rode in on.
I'm an educated white American (I have five college degrees, including a Master's Degree in history), and I'm not the least bit embarrassed by Custer. Just the opposite; he is one of my heroes. Why does Carson insert "educated," anyway? Is he suggesting that going off to college helps one see things clearly, so that if one doesn't go off to college, one is doomed to ignorance? It's actually the opposite. Colleges are indoctrination factories. History professors (to take just one discipline) try to make their students "see" the evil in American history. Their aim is to turn their students against (1) the people (such as Custer) they once viewed as heroes, (2) American institutions (such as the rule of law, the electoral college, and the free market), and (3) American values (such as self-sufficiency, individual liberty, and personal responsibility).
Custer is easy to hate, since—gasp!—he killed Indians. But (1) Indians were hardly innocent (they were, in fact, quite bloodthirsty and ecologically destructive, as any serious student of history knows) and (2) Custer was neither more nor less ambitious (or arrogant, or violent) than any other prominent military officer or politician. Barack Obama kills innocent Muslim civilians with drones. Is he an embarrassment to educated white Americans? Don't hold your breath for Carson's answer.
