Category: Uncategorized

http://humanlibrary.org/

The site is supposed to be updated soon, but there is still a lot of interesting information such as; what is expected of the “book” and reader, categories of books (everything from accountants to strippers), how to organize an event and feedback on previous humanlibrary events.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was in a short video about the Spanish Civil War and Euskadi ta Askatasuna (ETA)—the Basque militant, and de facto terrorist, political faction—that I saw an interview with an elderly Basque man who had seen the violence and experienced the repression of Franquist Spain. In the interview he said something very interesting to me, and pertinent to the discussion of conservatism. (I’ll paraphrase, as I cannot remember the exact quote) The effect of the quote was “I think that a person who has something, who owns something, is naturally going to be a conservative, because he has something that he wants to keep.” First of all is the obvious reality of the quote, that a person who is a conservative has something to conserve. The second point is in relation to the readings, and in particular Dr. Carlson’s. That point is that conservatism boomed in direct correlation to a boom in wealth in the United States. Personally, I had not realized how reliant this country was on social systems prior to the industrial boom of post-WWII society until I began studying local history. Even through the boom there was a great deal of dependence on what could be considered communal systems. Though based solely on anecdotal observations, it seems to me that wealth causes division among humans. Weather it does so on a class level as Marx suggested, or merely at the individual level, it seems painfully obvious that there is a divide when wealth comes in the picture. Having said that, I still consider myself a conservative, despite my abysmal poverty, and an individualist, despite my recognition that I require community, and a Christian, despite my extreme disappointment with what I observe as practical Christianity in the United States.

Hi-ho Silver—to the readings…

(disclaimer: I must preface the remainder of my comments by forthrightly stating that I have numerous withholdings in calling myself a conservative, philosophical and practical as well as literate. I find many conservatives to be off-putting in how they go about stating their objectives, some in what their objectives are. I don’t like the fact that so often conservatives present themselves as soulless ignoramuses, preaching morality and practicing something entirely different. I am frustrated by the lack of practical application of many of their conclusions as well as their stubborn, stiff-neckedness toward any suggestion of meaningful discussion or compromise. Having said all of that, most of those sentiments are equally applicable toward the other side of the coin as well. I detest what I often refer to as “bipolarism,” which is not a reference to the disease, and bear resemblance to Hegelian Opposites. I DON’T LIKE THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM! I think that Americans have been duped by the political forces that rule the land, and largely by an education system that perpetuates the discord via ardent support among the educators of a left of center ideal to a rather extreme degree. All this to say that I am a hard-core centrist with very strong antipathy toward any sort of real identification with any one particular perspective.)

I shall begin with what I thought was a true historical analysis without the political edge that I felt in many of the readings. I will devote an entire paragraph to the longest of these articles, and here it is: Dr. Carlson provided a well-structured and fair analysis of the history of conservatism. I thought it was rooted well in historical evidence, and supported by good sources. There, now wasn’t that nice?

Now on to the more fun stuff:

One element of politics that has always made me angry is the use of personally debasing statements to make a point. Case-in-point, Ken Taylor on The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth referred to the “idiots on the left.” Now really people, not conservatism’s best side. Oh, don’t worry, the Left has their catchphrase cuts for the “Christofascists” on the Right too. It is in fact for this reason that I never went into debate. Every time I was in a debate and trying to stick to the facts and interpretation thereof, my opponent would start throwing out personal attacks, and it just seemed to defeat the purpose of the whole practice, especially when they would win—not because their interpretation was better, but because they were better at making me look bad. At any rate, back to conservatives…I don’t like that quick reductionism that many conservatives leap to. Conservatism can be defended and it can be intellectually valid, but it’s adherents are destroying it. They do so with a complete and total failure to acknowledge the need to compromise by carrying everything to its extreme through a logic that always fails to provide a holistic argument and totally reduces any and every issue to a liberal misinterpretation of the constitution. So this is intended as a cheeky swipe at conservatives using their own methods, but, seriously, through the readings this week, it was hard to miss how quickly each author jumped from addressing an actual issue to attacking the liberals and their disdain for the constitution (should that be capitalized? Like, if it’s not, am I just talking about someone’s general physical propencities?). The point is that conservatives, by toting the Hegelian ideal don’t really help the situation of American politics.

I would also like to address the issue of “Christianity” and conservative America. Despite my identification with both groups, it borders on offensiveness to me when a pastor/minister/reverend/priest/bishop—I specifically am singling out “Christian” leaders—uses his position and church as a platform for politics. Don’t get me wrong, I think that there are issues where “Christians” should draw their line and fight for it, but that does not mean that church leaders should influence their congregation from the pulpit. It was that very behavior that led to the health/wealth gospel, the Billy Graham era and Reganocracy. This is a really tricky issue, because so often in the world religious or philosophical circles overlap political circles in some sort of strange Venn diagram. Yet—and I cannot overstate this—Christians must learn to develop their own philosophies and ministers must stop preaching a political gospel. The level of politics in American churches today has so poisoned the church that an organization—and I believe that a church is not a place, but people—that ought to be a refuge has become circles of scorn for those with differing politics. It has given rise to a generation like myself who despises the church, but eventually realizes it is not the church they despise, but anti-Christian exceptionalism embraced by the church.

In the reading this week, as I often find in conservative politics, I saw this disturbing conflagration of church/politics. Or of Christian/politics, and it disturbed me as it usually does. While I believe that the church has a right, and a responsibility to its people to discuss morality, I don’t think it has a right to impose its morals as such upon the broader swath of society. While I may argue that certain moral decisions within the secular sphere would benefit from a Christian ethic, I try to limit my arguments to secular arguments. I will grant that this is not an exact or perfect practice, but it is a practice, and it is the only practice that I have found that allows me to remain honest to myself and my faith. I feel one of the most exceptional examples of the Christian/politics crossover was the article on J. E. Dyer’s blog that discussed Islam and tried to defend an exception to freedom of religion in its case.

Finally—and I swear this is the last point in an already wordy post—I want to point out the use of “State” and “State’s Rights” among conservatives, particularly in Dyer’s blog, The Optimist Conservative. A general trend I have noted among conservatives is a misunderstanding of what the word “State” means. I think this misunderstanding is aided by a federalist governmental system that overarches individual states. Generally, when the word “State” is used in politics worldwide, it is used to refer to an independently classified entity with an independent government and a people that are united under some degree of mutuality. The states of the United States, are only semi-autonomous, and as such, are not really states, they are at best, provinces. This reality might fly in the face of what hard-core libertarians would like to think is the ideal, but it is the reality. In the case of the United States, the federal government by-and-large is the only thing that may be referred to as state. This being the case, when the constitution refers to the separation of Church and State, it does not indicate individual states that may choose their own stance on religion within, but the separation of Church from Government, and Government from Church. In this case, the “State” referred to is the federal government, not municipal or provincial governments. It makes for a great difference in interpretation of the constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I’d like to conclude that while I am happy that we read some from the conservative side of the spectrum, I feel that for me it was just white noise. I read a good selection from many different sides of things on a regular basis and I find off-center extremes are not where I find the most identification.

The history depicted in today’s reading reminds me just how much I dislike stereotypes of any kind. I am a self defined conservative woman and I do not approve most of what I’ve read here. I’m going to focus on the Lincoln article to save some time. I don’t think it would be a surprise to most who know me that I don’t really appreciate people taking Lincoln’s words out of context. Lincoln and his view on the Constitution and it’s writers is extremely complex. To say that “He respected and followed the text of the Constitution, rather than interpreting it as a “living” and evolving document or simply scrapping it altogether” would be a blatant lie. Lincoln understood the flexibility of the Constitution in times of war and at times completely ignored it. He committed many unconstitutional acts in his attempt to protect it. But I digress. Postell picked and chose what speeches to quote Lincoln from and ignored his actions. History without context is worthless. Instead, this history is purposefully narrow in order to support his point. Any and all history can corrupt itself if written this way. To corrupt history for one’s own purpose is upsetting to me. I think it defeats everything we have studied and worked towards as historians and public historians. If I were to create a museum exhibit of the Lincoln depicted in Postell’s work it would, by necessity, have to end at his election. The Lincoln of the Civil War would not support his supposition whatsoever. As historians and public historians we have to make sure that we’re telling the whole story no matter if we are red, blue, or purple.

In reading this week’s post, I believe I have reinforced the same belief that many others have come to before me, both conservatives and liberals approach not only historical events, but current events in a manner that coincides with their own unique beliefs on how the world should run. Reading this articles and watching multiple news channels really shows this. What they write or report on and the angle they go with really shows how our two party systems cover a wide spectrum of ideological beliefs, be they political, social, or religious.

One of the articles that caught my attention was “Gun Control—Not According to George Washington.” In the article Ken Taylor makes reference to a quote that George Washington said. The basic summary of the quote being that a free people should be able to have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain some status of their independence from anyone who tries to take it away from them.  These made me think of the Whiskey Rebellion. Though the Federal Government did not take their arms away, poor farmers in the western portion of the United States felt that the government had assaulted their freedom by imposing upon a tax that attacked their lively hood. Though not much came out of this event in the end, Washington did not view this tax as an attack on an individual’s freedoms or independence. It is that view that very much centers on any argument pertaining to the second amendment. In this post, Taylor argues that all legislation impacts law abiding gun owners, not criminals. Watching the news I know that is the very core of the conservative argument. I would imagine in an anti-gun blog, the blogger would use current events and laws to support their claim for gun legislation. What they both have in common though is that they both see themselves as defending the second amendment in the way they have come to interpret it.

            Every blog, article, and book out there shows an individual’s interpretation of the event and hopefully of some primary source material. One of the greatest appreciations that I have drawn from reading both conservative and liberal articles over the course of the class is the ability to be able to freely express ones belief in generally any matter you can come up with.

History of Conservatism

If historical mindedness “is the superior way to make sense of reality,” then why is Carlson “troubled by the growing interest of American conservatives in the history of their cause?”  This is either contradictory, or – in the mind of Carlson – conservatives are unable to make sense of reality.  This is a deeply troubling introduction to a rather biased article based upon the premise that conservatism is based on illegitimate problems and is therefore dying out.  Carlson argues that Libertarians “grounding in Old Europe gave them a stronger sense of history [and] a deeper perception that allowed them to see beyond certain superficialities” that are obviously tainting the rest of the conservative party.  Carlson argues that Fusionism is its own brand of conservatism, linking traditionalism with libertarianism.  I would argue that Fusionism is Conservatism: linking Judeo-Christian traditions, American exceptionalism, and libertarianism.

Carlson emphatically states that “the Reagan Era is over [it has become] pretty well drubbed.”  If Conservatism can outlast eight years of Clinton and Gore, why can’t it outlast Obama? George W. Bush was able to create a four-stranded coalition much like Reagan, who is to say this can’t occur once again.  Carlson castigates Republican ideals, the Reagan Era, and George W. Bush in explaining all that is wrong with America (he calls it the “Where are we now?” section).  This article was written in 2009, during Obama’s first year of office.  Carlson’s so-called “Age of Obama” has done little to change any of the “problems” in America despite Obama having his way over the past few years.  I wonder if Carlson would still see an “Age of Obama” following the “Reagan Era,” or if he – like many liberals – would be disappointed that Obama has not brought substantial positive chage?  It is too bad this article isn’t more recent.  As for Carlson’s comments about conservatives embracing forms of distributism and communitarianism alongside cultural pessimism, I highly doubt these will occur.  These three ideas contain conflicting ideals, and these three ideas only speak to an extremely small minority within the current conservative party.

Republicans, Democrats, and the Constitution/Founders

I found Ken Taylor’s articles to be well written, open in their bias, and historically founded.  His assertions regarding the Founding Fathers, fun control, and Thanksgiving seem rather straight-forward.  While I found parts of Scott’s and the Optimistic Conservative’s articles well written, I hold reservations regarding both.

Scott’s article about three types of Democrats – he broke them up by their level of adherence to the Constitution – has great potential.  I agree with most of his assertions regarding the first two types of Democrats, but I have reservations regarding the third. “Open Opponents” to the Constitution will continue to fight against a document they regard as impeding progress, but at least they are open about their views and individuals electing them know this and are able to vote accordingly.  “So-to-Speak Supporters” of the Constitution are epitomized by FDR and Obama.  They oppose the Constitution as much as the first group, but understand how awful this sounds and therefore mask their true feelings in distastefully vague rhetoric in order to further their purpose to wholly disregard the Constitution in order to make way for liberal “progress.”  Scott argues that “Forthright Supporters” of the Constitution are few and far between in the Democratic Party because of inherently conflicting ideals.  He proceeds to explain why – in his opinion – Democrats simply can’t uphold the Constitution.  This is simply not true.  Just because liberals and conservatives disagree on most every issue does not mean that neither party is willing to (or has the capability of ) adhering to the Constitution.  I would definitely add that there are three types of Republicans: “Forthright Supporters” like the Tea Party and the New Right, “So-to-Speak Supporters” who choose which parts of the Constitution to uphold and which parts not to uphold, and “Open Opponents” like truly radical rightists who feel that the current form of government is so corrupt that a new government with a new Constitution needs to be created.  Neither party is perfect.  Yes, the Republican Party is more Constitutionally-minded; but, there are Constitutionally-minded Democrats and Republicans that oppose the Constitution.

The Optimistic Conservative writes about whether Americans have the right to disobey Islamic law or not.  As this individual points out, Americans are granted the undeniable freedom of religion.  This includes religions – like Islam – that are out of the mainstream.  So long as Islamic Law does not stand in the way of federal, state, and local laws and ordinances, Muslims are free to obey Islamic Law.  Once Islamic Law oversteps, wholly disregards, or disobeys American law, Islamic Law may be deemed unlawful.  Until that time, Muslims are free to practice their religion as granted them by the Constitution.  As for non-Muslims, I agree with the author, we have the inherent right to disobey Islamic Law, just like Americans have the inherent right to disobey Jewish Law.  This nation is not a theocracy, this nation is a democratic republic; this author would be wise to keep this in mind.

Presidents

Why aren’t there any articles about Ronald Reagan, Thomas Jefferson, or George W. Bush?  Surely understanding these individuals is just as important (if not more important) as understanding Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln in gaining a better understanding of Presidents and conservatism throughout history.  Postel’s brief article on Lincoln sheds light on a greater American problem plaguing both Republicans and Democrats.  George Washington and Abraham Lincoln have become the go-to Presidents whenever someone wants to defend an idea.  Washington and Lincoln were both great men who did great things; but both were imperfect men as all men are.  I am extremely conservative, and I for one and sick and tired of having Lincoln flaunted about as the conservative poster-child.  It would be a toss-up between Lincoln and FDR as to who broke the Constitution more.  Regardless of my beliefs, Postel’s article is based upon primary documents, something the Heritage Foundation prides itself in.  I particularly enjoyed the Conservative Historian’s article on Teddy Roosevelt.  TR, as with many presidents, is utilized to perpetuate most everyone’s ideas.

Recent History

Ericksen’s article was an enjoyable read.  His sentence “It is amazing that within a one week period the media went from speculating that right wingers were celebrating Hitler’s birthday on tax day to blaming Chechen nationalism to hearing the bomber say he was inspired by Islam to announcing it’s not him, it’s us to blame,” sums up conservative sentiments about what is wrong with the liberal media ruining this country.  If the bomber had been a right wing extremist rather than an Islamic extremist, the media would be talking about this instance for months.  Because the terrorist was yet another Muslim – “In the past decade we have seen that not all Muslims are terrorists, but just about every terrorist has been a Muslim – the media is blaming America? I would ask where the logic is behind this, but I already know the answer, there isn’t any.  Longstreet’s article, while overtly passionate, political, and religious, brings up great topics regarding the current trends in America.  Something is clearly going wrong, at least Longstreet is offering ideas of how to fix this once great nation.

History Education: Educational Resources, Posts by Teachers, Posts about Education

A Conservative Teacher provided great insights into historical education.  I loved his ideas about a capstone project to end a World History class.  I wonder how he chose the ten people, places, events, ideas… when handing out this assignment.  Regardless, I absolutely loved the student examples he gave.  Any student that likens Obama to Mark, Lenin, Mao, Hitler, and Napoleon need only add FDR into the mix to see how often “great men” fail throughout history.  The best part of the first article was not the parts that got me to laugh, but the conclusion: “Students today, just like students in the past, are as smart, hard-working, intuitive, and creative as previous generations, as long as the previous generations get out of the way and let them be all that they can be.”  Well put.  History teachers need to allow students to think critically, form educated opinions, and become culturally literate members of society.

A Conservative Teacher’s assertion that a country will retain its national core regardless of the government’s attempts to “change” it is particularly comforting given the current regime’s constant attempts to “change” everything.  I wonder what A Conservative Teacher would say about the government’s attempts at educational change?  While I believe both Republican and Democratic Presidents have acted with the best of intentions in creating educational plans for America, most of these have failed rather miserably.  How would A Conservative Teacher categorize or justify this?  As for his article about state standards, I agree completely.  Liberal indoctrination is ruining our schools.  As more and more states adopt the Common Core Standards (a liberal-leaning, federal initiative to unify disparate state standards) misconceptions are furthered and less content is learned.  This is not to say that conservatives are not doing the same thing, skimming the Texas State Standards will show the exact opposite trend.

After reading A Conservative Teacher’s article about McCarthyism, I know that I would have loved him as a teacher.  He explained to his students that there is a conservative spin on McCarthyism and that there is a liberal spin on McCarthyism.  By addressing biases, he is allowing his students to discover the truth while forming their own opinions.  As for the “liberal” teacher’s notes he acquired, I think the teacher should be fired, unless he or she is teaching at Karl Mark High School for Socialist Minded Students Seeking Liberal Indoctrination.  J

The lesson plan on Gun Rights has the makings of a great lesson plan.  Both sides of the issue are presented and the majority of the questions allow the students to think critically.  By this I mean that most of the questions are not leading or worded in a way that expects a specific answer.  Seeing as the Second Amendment is the main point of this lesson, the teacher teaching the class would have to have a good understanding of the Constitution in order to effectively present the conservative opinion.  Similarly, the teacher would have to have a good understanding of social change and progressive movements in order to effectively present the liberal opinion.  As an educator that strives to present both sides of most every argument, I strive to be the ultimate generalist so I can understand and explain the main ideas behind most historical movements and ideas.  All in all, this is a good lesson plan; whether or not this lesson is effective depends upon the teacher presenting the lesson.

The fact that a self-described “liberal, queer feminist” is teaching about the history of conservatism should be disheartening to all.  During my undergraduate career, I had a white teacher from the middle of Nebraska who admitted that she never saw a person of color until she was 18.  This teacher taught me Multicultural Education, a class about integrating multicultural ideas into “white” curriculum.  This might shock you, but I got next to nothing out of this class.  Teachers that are so one-sided should stick to teaching about general historical topics where they can insert their biases.  As an aside, Potter could have left out the self-description, her biased opinions shaded the entire article.  Potter casts conservatives as unintelligent, illogical, and radical.  I am very glad that I was not subjected to this teacher’s poor explanation of history.

Klugewicz’s views on historical education run parallel to my own.  The reason I am becoming a history teacher is to encourage students to think for themselves rather than accept the “facts” that are purported by liberal teachers attempting to indoctrinate their students.  Too many teachers encourage nihilism when it comes to American history.  Too often, liberals emphasize American evils like sexism, racism, industrialism… rather than teaching about the good parts of American history.  Teachers need to inspire patriotism in their students.  American children should be presented with a history they can be proud of.  As such, historical educators should strive to present history in a manner that is true, but also in a manner that does not purposefully demean the United States every other page.  Americans need to learn about the great things this nation has accomplished, not just the terrible atrocities it has supposedly committed.  Why do we allow liberals, under the guise of diversity and liberal enlightenment, to dictate what our students learn?  The Common Core Standards are sure to ensure liberals are able to maintain a hold on the educational standards our students are forced to learn within.  Political correctness will be the death of this nation, education included.  Why can’t liberals recognize that flawed human beings are able to be admired?  After all, all people are by nature flawed.  Just because a historical figure was racist, sexist, or elitism doesn’t mean everything they did was bad.  Facts do not speak for themselves, humor needs to be integrating into historical curriculum, and reason must be maintained as subservient to truth.

Miscellaneous…Liberal Rantings about Conservatism

Hitt’s Conservative History of the United States contains quotes that are taken out of context and from individuals that strive for soundbytes that will land them publicity.  My favorite “historically quoted event” on this absurd timeline is September 11^th, 2001.  According to Hitt, conservatives believe that nothing occurred on 9/11!!  Any conservative will tell you that Islamic Terrorists attacked the United States of America on 9/11!  That Hitt even thought to add this proves his lack of understanding of conservatism.  I could do this with most of the events on this timeline.  Hitt redefines ignoramus; this rivals Chauncey DeVega’s article as one of the most biased I have ever read.  Hensatri opens his article with “It is the mark of an intellectually honest person that they will take the occasional moment aside from the heat of debate and seriously consider the position of their opponent.”  He then proceeds to explain how he is such an intellectual.  After his self-aggrandizement is over, he gets to the point of his argument: “Social Conservatives are always wrong.”  How intellectual?  How honest? How ridiculous! Nathaniel Strickland’s article highlights how big the gap has become between conservatives and liberals.  This article makes me truly wonder whether the gap can ever be bridged.

 

Hey, here’s a good diagram from Fish and Wildlife. It doesn’t show tribal impacts or historical impacts, but the processes are very similar.

http://training.fws.gov/EC/Resources/nepa/cd/Checklists%20and%20Forms/NHPA%20Sec106_diagram.pdf

 

King’s book was impressively straight-forward.  In line with his realistic approach, comes a pessimistic reality: even though there are impressive sounding federal laws, they fail to protect cultural, historical, and environmental sites in America.  I particularly liked King’s comments about the contractor’s approach regarding the EIS for building a parallel set of railroad tracks at Abo Pass, New Mexico.  The contractor felt that destroying historical and cultural sites would not have an adverse effect so long as they excavated and documented them beforehand.  King explains “If I burn your house to the ground, I’ve adversely affected it, no matter how well I may record it first.”  Obviously there is a disconnect in the formation of EIS documents.  Granted, this EIS did explain that specific pictographs would be avoided, but I am completely shocked that this is entire approach falls within the legal limit of environmental/historical/cultural preservation.  Similarly, the contractors failed to even consider visual effects, audible effects, the effects of railroad use in general…the list goes on and on.  This contractor is definitely going to get hired for future EIS formations; he plays the game to a tee!  He says all of the right things, contacts all the right people, and still ensures that the project can go on, all the while explaining how they are working to preserve the historical/environmental/cultural aspects of the site they intend to destroy.

King discusses the issue surrounding comprehensibility, and I wish he would have explored this problem with more depth.  Regardless of how deep he may have explored comprehensibility, I feel that it is a huge issue with grave implications.  If EIS, NEPA, NRHP etc. forms are fully comprehensive and taken completely seriously, nothing will ever get built.  If these forms are not comprehensive enough, nothing will ever be denied.  I have no idea where the middle road lies, but I would argue that a middle road needs to be developed and adhered to.  This links back to the issues between “bright green” and “light green” laws.  What is the point of having laws that are rarely able to be enforced?  While “light green” laws certainly look good on the books, appease environmentalists, and convey an environmentally friendly atmosphere to onlookers, they do little more.

Even “bright green” laws (and statutes) fail to be enforced on a regular basis.  King explains how the EPA systematically undercut its own standards in order to not have to deal with the Abo Pass railroad, automobile, gas etc. catastrophe.  If the EPA, the highest environmental agency in the bureaucratic mess that is Washington D.C. is purposefully finding ways to undercut its statutory responsibilities, I am afraid that I must agree with the author, saving historic, cultural, and environmental sites is a lost cause.  If I had to site a key problem, it would be the bureaucratic mess that exists.  King’s book is inundated with acronyms of government agencies; the whole thing reads like Campbell’s Alphabet Soup.  There are so many agencies with competing interests and varying degrees of oversight and legislative teeth that few things ever get done.  As King passionately explains, reform, restructuring, revision of laws, restoration of bureaucratic roles, and a widespread governmental clean up needs to occur.  King adds that the Constitution must also be amended.  While I (surprise, surprise) feel that this is overkill, I do concede that a constitutional amendment would fix the problem and ensure a feasible process to a beneficial solution.

I am currently working on developing curriculum regarding the intersection between politics and environmentalism.  One of the articles I am basing my lesson plans on is an impassioned speech by Richard Gottlieb decrying presidential elections and the lack of change they bring to the environmental arena.  King’s memo to Obama parallels Gottlieb’s hope for true change.  Unfortunately for King and Gottlieb, I am afraid that Obama, environmentally speaking, has followed most of his modern predecessors.  Save Carter (who actively fought to clean up the environment), Reagan (who actively worked to limit all aspects of government intervention, the environment included), and Nixon (who began his presidency as a staunch advocate for environmental change but ended his presidency wondering where his environmental hopes turned to governmental impediments) no president has done much of anything to truly alter the environmental scene.  While Obama has a few years to change my mind, he has, so far, failed to enact positive change with respect to the environment.

I want to be very honest here: I did not plan on liking Our Unprotected Heritage. In fact, I did not want to like it. Taken one level further, I wanted very badly to dislike the book. After reading it, I cannot say that I liked it, but I also cannot say that I disliked it. I believe the specific word to describe my feelings is “ambivalent.” In short, I don’t think King produced a book that said, or did, anything. Following are my thoughts.

First off, please note that I seek in my own life to resolve emotion, heritage, belief, knowledge and existence. That may be a tall order, but I believe that it can be done. What it almost inevitably leads me to is hypocrisy in my own life, and judgment and criticism of others. Such criticism leads me to the realization that, while another has created something, my criticism of it may well emanate from my own insecurity and inability to create. It’s all a vicious cycle. I express this only to clarify that while I am being critical in the following, I recognize that it may come from a position of insecurity. Basically, I believe that my criticism of King’s work might be accused of the very flaws of which I accuse him.

Let me begin with the cover and title of the book. I have expressed before that I react very harshly against things that smack of vogue, uneducated responses to any issue. While I do not mean to call King uneducated, because he has so much more knowledge on the subject than do I, I mean to make a judgment about the audience that I feel will likely pick up this book. This audience, I believe, have chosen their battle, they have become ever more entrenched in a system that seeks its own preservation to the ignorance (the culture, not the people within it) of the greater operation of the world. They are systems that are built upon process with little concern for a well-drawn philosophy. Though the philosophy exists, it is debated quite separately from the processes. It all becomes somewhat of a religion, the religion or preservation. Even the early preservation systems in our great nation were societies—clubs, or groups that met on a regular basis to discuss the conversion of the masses to their high-calling. The difficulty I have with this is the same struggle I have with a great part of the Christian world–or any other religion–it seems to me to be an uninformed following that reassures itself that its premises are right, moral, ethical and should be followed. I guess I am just jealous that I am not monetizing this faith. The point being that I feel that those who will read this book are those who want to reinforce their own perspectives an practices.

The cover, the title, by using terms like “whitewashing” and “destruction of our cultural…”—and even “Unprotected”—set the reader up for toking on preservationist pot. It immediately causes any person who believes himself to be informed to call up schemas of father communal property to save him from evil corporatism. And from word one in the book, the reader is not disappointed, for “Darkside Development Corporation” is at it again to raze every shred of evidence from the past. I knew right there exactly where the book was headed: these evil corporate Satans desire that nothing should be remembered and it is up to intelligent people to balance the scales. So with the help of some haphazard government intervention in the late sixties preservationists are at leading the charge to attack the developers and save that ramshackle shack that you grew up in. What I appreciated was that the line item preservationist mantra was not what King wrote.

Though King began the work with what might be considered standard preservationist arguments about heritage and environment, he did depart in that he chose the path of criticism of the very system that is usually touted as the salvation, or at least a primary tool of preservationists. To a degree I appreciated Ira Beckerman’s assessment in the Afterword. What I liked was that Ira indicated that there is a fundamental problem with the preservation systems at the cultural-philosophical level, rather than a problem immediately with the preservation systems. My appreciation for that assessment comes from the belief that there should be a strong philosophical underpinning to any process. And it was on that same level that I felt King’s argument failed. I struggled through the book to understand whether King thinks that the preservation systems (NHPA and NEPA in particular) should be used and revised, or abandoned altogether. I think that this feeling came from the fact that King himself is a little conflicted. While he seemed to praise the original construction and intent of the preservation systems, he was very critical of the processes that those systems use. He even identified himself as being a “fan of good process.” This conflict—that basically made the book unique—created a frustration for me as a reader when King would attempt to support the preservation systems and immediately u-turn and criticize them.

On a similar thread to his seeming two-faced presentation of the systems was the frustrating fact that even though he broached the subject of philosophy of preservation practice, there was little to no real discussion of its actual necessity. King’s argument, like so much within the preservation world, assumed that preservation is necessary and good, without explaining exactly why. Because of this, I would like to circle back to my prior argument of self-preserving groups—they usually attempt to keep followers busy with process and shield them from critical analysis of philosophy: “What you do is good and it has value because you are doing it.” There was a slight exception in the case of Our Unprotected Heritage and that came from King’s acknowledgement that preservation is not always the “good” thing when considering the human environment.

My last criticism of King’s book comes from the fact that it often read like a conspiracy theory. It was as if the Government and Corporations were/are working very closely together to destroy the natural environment of its people, at any cost. He talked about the blind “rubber stamping” of projects that maybe shouldn’t have gone forward without more criticism or more environmental assessments. But would follow up with things like, “It doesn’t take much imagination to guess” why they had not done those. One of the primary lessons that I have learned from academia is that conspiracy theorists are loonies that speculate about things that they don’t know and they can be spotted by their conspicuous use of phrases like “It doesn’t take much imagination.” (Maybe, but you do admit that it does take imagination). The point being that an academic worth his weight should be expected to stick to what is known and what can be proven. Journalistic speculation leads to innocent 17 year old high school track runners being plastered on the front of the New York Post as bombing suspects. There is room for interpretation, just don’t make yourself sound like a boob.

In the end, I didn’t really feel that King offered anything new. I felt the high points of the work were balanced by the lows, the valid arguments were offset by silly speculation, and his focus on process reform at the expense of philosophy equated to a wash. It was like I had read nothing. I couldn’t strongly like it or dislike it. It was not really new information, or even new interpretation. Ultimately, I am completely ambivalent toward it. From a critical standpoint it was like a chartreuse panel on a neon quilt, not off enough to make it stand out, not alike enough to make it blend in. Maybe that is a good thing. I really don’t know.

What I can say is that I am looking forward to discussion on the subject.