It just goes to show that even liberal magazines can run afoul of the social justice warriors.

Liberal magazine Nature ran an article trying to defend history and was attacked by the left for being racist.

Nature magazine is owned by the Macmillan Publishers group which is as liberal as most media outlets these days, but because they write one article suggesting tearing down history is bad, they are reaping the whirlwind of liberals who can’t wait to be offended.

As a result, the tweeting world went nuts:

“Seriously tho, how white & privileged are @NatureNews’s editorial team?

i’m gonna need every single white person defending racist monuments to sit the f**k down

statues HONOR people & ideas. there are other, better ways to remember our horrible past than honoring those who committed atrocities”

But my favorite was attacking Nature for using the term “white washing” implying this term is racist:

“whitewash” is a horrible choice of words here

The Washington Post reported:

On Monday, Nature published a staff editorial titled “Removing statues of historical figures risks whitewashing history.” It argued, in effect, that public monuments of people with “questionable records on human rights” should be left in place, lest the country lose sight of the lessons they offered.

As a remedy, the journal proposed installing plaques noting the controversy or erecting statues of equal size dedicated to the victims.

But after a wave of outrage online, much of it from the scientific community, the prestigious publication revised parts of its editorial and apologized for the “offensive and poorly worded” article.

“It did not accurately convey our intended message and it suggested that Nature is defending statues of scientists who have done grave injustice to minorities and other people,” an editor’s note read.

“Our position is that any such memorials that are allowed to stand should be accompanied by context that makes the injustice clear and acknowledges the victims.”

Few were satisfied with the revisions or the apology. Nature acknowledged that “many people disagree with the article more fundamentally” and promised to publish some of the criticisms in the coming days.

Nature’s editorial was prompted in part by recent attacks on the late J. Marion Sims, the “father of gynecology” who is known to have performed surgical experiments on enslaved black women without anesthesia.

The journal noted that a bronze likeness of Sims in Central Park had been defaced at the end of August and that activists were calling for its removal.

What is interesting is anesthesia did not exist in 1850 when Dr. Sims treated these black women who were suffering from life threatening conditions.

His work benefited the women he operated on and he carried out his operations for therapeutic purposes.

Sims used the knowledge to save the lives of countless other women.

The fact that these women were slaves is abhorrent, but Dr. Sims did not own them, he just saved the lives of those women.

The Post continued:

“Nature suggested that the country might be better off judging historical figures “by their achievements rather than by modern norms.”

“Sims was far from the only doctor experimenting on slaves in 1849, despite the fact that the abolitionist movement was well under way in the United States. And his achievements saved the lives of black and white women alike,” read the editorial, which was unsigned.

Would this woman feel this way if she knew this doctor created modern gynecological medicine and was the first person to allow infertile couples to have kids by creating artificial insemination?

He did a great deal for women’s health.  Do you think his statue should be taken down?