Applied History

The readings for this week has really stopped and made me think.  Though I view myself as my parents viewed themselves as “New Dealers”, I found that I was more middle of the road than I thought that I was.  I agree with Corey that I am grateful for my Second Amendment rights.  Teachers though do not need to be armed.  Most schools have SRO’s or School Resource Officers, that do carry a loaded weapon into a public school.  They are there to handle those kind of situations.  I really do not  agree with Mr. Barton.  If a armed teacher was at Sandy Hook, it could have made the situation that much worse, if the perpetrator knew that there was a teacher carrying a weapon.  With my military training, I had months of weapons classes and training.  I took no particular pleasure carrying a loaded M-16 on my back for 18 months.  Barton’s articles to me were very cringe worthy and wonder what his Version of America would really look like.

I have a good question about Mr. Conservative Teacher?  He seems to be posting like Caunchy De Vega, with a pseudo-name?  Is he afraid that he might lose his job if the Lefties find out his real name?  Oh Heaven Forbid!  Okay, now class, I did some student teaching in a public High School.  When I team taught the 50’s about McCarthyism,  we taught the blacklist.  But it was with a neutral slant.  Please watch YouTube as we all have, when he is stating that there are spies everywhere in the Army, and the Mr. Welch finally called him for what he was.  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po5GlFba5Yg).  So there Mr. Conservative Teacher, on live television.  If you want a Conservative Education then go to BYU, Oral Roberts University or Liberty University.  All right enough soapbox.

Jack Hitt’s article really showed my how the other 53 percent really think.  To me this showed just how really uneducated politicians are, (and I am sure there is an article about what the liberal politicians have said).  I followed what was said during the Presidential Primaries, and Mr. Hitt brought them all out.  It is really hard being Blue in a Red state, but I try to deal with it as best as I can and yes, Michelle Bachmann loves New Hampshire.

Opinions are great, even if they differ from my own. However, blatant lies and twisting history is uncalled for. While not every article contained it, many of these articles used history as their playground. They climbed all over it and abused it in order to fit their political argument. When we read Chauncey’s articles, some were concerned with the evidence he used and said it was poor. While I did not like everything he said, and felt there were elements of his arguments that contained more opinion than fact, he at least included some sources.  Well for the majority of these articles I ask where is the evidence at all? Many of them contained no facts to backup their opinions. Without facts you have no argument. A lot of the articles contained hypothetical arguments such as if George Washington lived today he’d allow Americans to own any gun they wanted. Or that if Martin Luther King were alive today he’d stand next to Rush Limbaugh in protest of big government. I think it’s pointless to make a statement that someone who lived hundreds of years ago would agree with something you are doing today because it’s impossible to prove.

Allan Carlson used sources to backup his claims, however he used the same author for most of his evidence. He made a good point that FOX News contributes to the narrowing of thought and closes people off to a healthy debate. When you watch Hannity and O’Reilly, there is no debate. They are right and you are wrong and they prove this by shouting at you rather than providing facts and debating in a polite way. However, FOX should not be solely targeted. MSNBC is guilty as well, as is CNN. Like Chauncey said, the corporate media networks are not interested in telling the truth but are interested in viewers so they stir the pot. What is shocking is how many people believe their pot stirring statements.

Moving on to Carol Scott’s article on the Constitution. She claims there are only three types of Democrats when it comes to the Constitution: Those who don’t support it, those who sort of support it but secretly don’t, and those that do. First off, it’s more complex than that. Just because someone does not support every single piece of the Constitution does not make them anti-American, or against the Founding Fathers. She basically said that those who do not support the Constitution 100% do not understand the Federalist papers and are not supporters of the Founding Fathers, which is a simplistic and ignorant statement.  Her agenda is clear; to make Liberals seem anti-American and against the Founding Fathers, while at the same time make Republicans the true patriots carrying on the legacy of the founders. She stated the “so-to speak supporters” are misleading the public. What is her argument doing then? Exactly the same thing.

The Optimistic Conservative provided us with an article on how everything in this country is tied to God. While everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs, we are a country that was founded on the separation of Church and State. Meaning state should not influence religion, and religion should not influence the state. However, I feel the latter is not as condemned as the former. The rights in this country were created by men, not God first of all. Secondly, to clump all the founders in as Church going Christians is a misrepresentation of what they were. While the majority identified as Christians, to assume they all practiced the same way and with the same passion is, again, a generalization. We have freedom of religion in this country, which means saying this country was created under God (which means the Protestant version of God) is infringing on the rights of Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Taoists, etc. If government is not allowed to make decisions which infringe on religion, then why is religion allowed to make decisions which dictate legislation (abortion, gay marriage, creation taught in school, etc)? Seems hypocritical to me.

Ken Taylor’s article may have been the most biased out of the group. Not only did he include zero citations or evidence, but his argument is hypocritical. He blamed the liberals for using the founding fathers to back up their political claims, yet what is he doing in this article? The same exact thing. Not only is he taking words spoken by Washington out of context, he is forgetting that the second amendment stated guns should be available for a “well regulated militia.” A militia is not every single person who wants a gun. While the right to bear arms is clear, the right to bear any arm is not clear. He’s comparing the guns of 1776 to the guns of 2012? Sorry, but there is no comparison. I don’t agree when people say things like “Well George Washington would have agreed with me today” when they really have no idea what he would think. What would Washington’s reaction to the second amendment be if he saw we had automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons, and clips that could hold 100 rounds? Even 30 rounds would seem like an assault weapon to him. I don’t think Taylor should be so confident that Washington’s reaction would be supportive of total gun freedom. He also said there has never been a successful case of gun control in any country, which is false. Australia instituted gun legislation after the massacre in Tasmania and haven’t had a massacre since. Before that, they saw eight massacres within the last thirteen years. Europe is another example where gun violence is down. So it has worked in other countries Mr. Taylor.

I am done rambling now, but for the majority of the articles I just found zero sources or facts to back up any claims. I found ignorance towards historical events from a lot of the articles. Not only did they use history to justify their political viewpoints, but they ignored historical evidence which countered parts of their arguments. Liberals are not exempt either. Both sides use history to their benefit. However, the hijacking of MLK really annoyed me. While they use the argument his niece said he was a Republican, his own son said not only was he not a Republican, he never voted for one in his entire life. Who is a more reliable source? His niece or his son? However, I get the impression it doesn’t matter who said it as long as someone did, which troubles me. If you don’t use critical thinking when faced with facts such as this, how can you be a historian? You can’t say he was a Republican because his niece said so when his son says otherwise.

http://www.politifact.com/tennessee/statements/2012/jan/23/charlotte-bergmann/another-republican-claims-martin-luther-king-jr-wa/

While 100% objectivity is impossible, I feel that trying to be as objective as possible is attainable. Not only were a majority of these articles not objective at all, but there was not even an attempt. A lack of evidence hurt their arguments as well.  Hardly any of them used any statistics or facts to support what they said. While I didn’t disagree with everything they stated, the way they presented it turned me away. Had they brought in other arguments and considered them instead of the “I am right, you are wrong” argument, it would have helped. And yes, Ms. Bachmann is incorrect, the majority of the Founding Fathers owned slaves including Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Patrick Henry, John Jay, Samuel Chase, John Hancock, and Benjamin Franklin.

In reading this weeks postings I have come to the conclusion that conservatives and liberals do in fact “do history” differently.  The bloggers that I read this week like to write about how things were better before liberals ruined the country.  They believe that if only they could eliminate the liberal indoctrination of the children of America things would be much better.  This is a concept that keeps popping up over and over again; indoctrination.  This is a real fear for them.  Because they believe that liberals are evil, as Strickland stated, and have morally compromised leaders as Scott affirms.  This is why they can show Barak Obama as the devil and state that Jimmy Carter is the worst liberal ever.  Really, Jimmy Carter is the worst liberal ever?  This man has spent the past 35 years building homes for the homeless and attempting to stop the spread of disease in Africa through creating methods for cleaner drinking water.  This is not the worst liberal ever.

Another concept that I noticed is that some bloggers use facts in a new and surprising way.  For example, Barton claimed that the 3/5ths clause was not a measurement of human worth.  The reality is that they did not see slaves as human, they were property.  This can’t be ignored.  To call it an anti-slavery provision is a bit disingenuous.  The North did not think it was fair to have slaves be property and yet still count as population.  There was also an argument made that the Founding Fathers were mostly opposed to slavery.  Again, this is an interesting interpretation of the facts.  Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe all owned slaves.  Even Klugewicz, another conservative blogger, stated that after the Constitutional Convention Madison sold off his valet because he was afraid that his slave might get ideas about freedom and liberty.  So while they might have claimed to dislike the institution of slavery, none of them were willing to take the financial hit that freeing their slaves would have caused.  This class is also aware that Washington created the runaway slave laws after his own slave ran off.  So it’s not like they were fighting the good fight to end slavery or that they were willing to put their money where their morals were.

I agree with Vanessa Anderson regarding the contributions of blacks in history.  I think too often we focus on what was done to blacks.  History shows that they had their own methods of rebelling.  Black people have made enourmous contributions to this country, as have women and Native Americans.  We should talk about that more often.  It is funny that she made this point by attacking liberals for wanting to teach sex education.  “I firmly believe that if accurate history regarding this era was actually taught in schools (instead of teaching our youth how to have safe anal sex), we would by now be dealing with fading racial scars instead of wounds that wont heal; better yet, wounds that are not allowed to heal.”  Sigh.

There seems to be this idea among conservatives that only they are truly patriotic.  They use the founding of America and the mythology that surrounds the Founding Fathers to point out that they hold the only means to saving this country from the horrors of liberalism.  Ken Taylor brings up all the men who died defending the heritage of America.  He writes about Old Glory, my country tis of thee, bravery, and freedom.  He wants us all to remember the fighting men and women keeping this country safe for democracy.  This is nationalism at its scariest.  He’s not really saying anything here, just using patriotic rhetoric to remind us that there is a war being fought that we should all be supporting.

The teacher/blogger made me laugh.  I had to roll my eyes at some of the things he said because I believe that, yes, the government should protect the environment because it has been proven that without the government business will use the most economical means of disposing of hazardous materials.  Usually this involves dumping them.  “Only by removing the communist principles in education can teachers again teach and further the life, liberty, and prosperity of our children.”  Again, I see fear inducing rhetoric.  Do this or life, liberty, and prosperity will be unavailable for your children.  I doubt it, but ok.  I will say that I liked his take on the preparedness and education of high school students.  Often what is overlooked is how intelligent some of these kids are.  Each succeeding generation is afraid for the lazy good-for-nothings coming up behind them.  I doubt that the USA will fall into failure when the next generation comes of age.  It will just be different than it was before; as it should be.  There is the crux of the difference between libs and cons.  One wants thing to stay the same and one is forever wanting change, to bad that they can’t work together, like yin and yang, bringing balance to the force.

After skimming the titles of the required posts for this week, I landed on Klugewicz’s article, “Hungry Souls and Brave Hearts: Heroism, History and Myth,” and I thought it would be an interesting read. In studying the history of the American West, I have learned to acknowledge the challenges of reconciling the dichotomy of the region’s actual history with that of the “Imagined West” (which is characterized as paternalistic, individualistic, timeless and placeless etc.). I figured that this article would promote a similar approach and would encourage readers to question their perceptions of the past, especially those perceptions clouded in myth. I thought the author would be reiterating the importance of recognizing the convoluted relationship between the history and myth. I was so wrong.

How can anyone seriously advocate telling “history as a great myth?” This approach creates so many problems, and I think this is why students dislike history to the extent that they do. They have grown up with a mythic understanding of the past, and at some point in their academic careers they are introduced to a less exaggerated, less epic, uglier version of the past, and I think they feel cheated. Why would they be interested in studying something that in no way resembles what they thought they knew about history? At this point, it is easier for them to disregard a truthful interpretation of the past and stick with the version of history that Hollywood created.

Western American historian Richard White provides a thorough explanation of the role that the “imagined West” plays in Western American history. While White acknowledges that it is difficult to separate the mythic West from the historic West, he recognizes that the two do need to be identified as distinct entities, both capable of providing insight into the past. But this insight is only visible when both versions are made available. While this is rather a long explanation, I think it is so well written and phrased. To not include it in this post would be most unfortunate.

Richard White writes, “Myth means falsehood; however in a second, deeper sense, myths are not so much falsehoods as explanations. Mythmakers draw from history: they use real people or actual incidents. They have no compunctions, however, about changing details, adding characters, and generally rearranging events in order to make the meaning of their stories clearer. Historians also draw from history, and they, too, are selective. Historians necessarily select from among numerous available facts in order to create a story about the past. Historians, by the code of their discipline, put great store in facts, but facts are rarely at the heart of historical disputes. Instead, historians argue over the relationships between largely agreed upon fact, for it is the relationship between facts that differentiates one historian’s story from another historian’s story. Historians and mythmakers thus both seek to order the past in a way that conveys meaning. Both tell stories. But, historians, also by the code of their craft, cannot reorder facts or invent new one. Historians are thus more cramped and constricted than mythmakers in their attempts to explain what the past means.”

“If we differentiate history from myth solely on the basis of facts, we will, however, run into conceptual difficulties over what a fact is, and more significantly, miss a larger difference. For a good historian, as the cliche goes, the past is another country. People in the past operate in a different context than we in the present. Any lessons the past teaches are those about processes and change. Myth, for all its attention to the past, denies this and thus denies “history” itself. Myth refuses to see the past as fundamentally different from the present. In myth, time brings no essential change. The past and the present are not only connected, they are also metaphorically identical. Myth rips events out of context and drains them of their historicity. How a cowboy acts in a myth is how an American male should act regardless of time or place. A man has to do what a man has to do. Myths thus are antihistory, for history above all depends on context.” (White, “It’s Your Misfortune and None of My Own: A New History of the American West, 615-616.)

Aside from the lunacy of Klugewicz’s support of myths as an acceptable form teaching the past, he has the audacity to further explain his asinine approach. He writes, “We understand that though good and evil most definitely exist, men themselves are neither black nor white but rather some shade of gray.” Teaching history as a myth creates a justification for ignoring these gray areas. In the classic “Western” movies of the 1950s and 1960s, at the height of Hollywood’s reign on Western American history, directors and screenwriters depicted Cowboys and Indians as the poster children for the quintessential Western myth. It was apparent that film makers expected audiences to aspire to be John Wayne and grow to despise the “uncivilized, dangerous, and savage” Indians. The plot of good versus evil is about as black and white as it gets; and in this story there is no room for grey. Audiences are supposed to ignore the realities behind these stories; realities of natives being killed, marginalized, and herded onto reservations; among other realities about the region. History tells us that living in the American West was not an easy feat, nor was it as fun as Hollywood pretends. All of these nuances stories disappear when the only version of history that is made available is the myth. I cannot even believe that Klugewicz would be advocating that we teach kids history this way without at least providing (and thoroughly explaining) that there is another version of the story that is a more truthful portrayal of the past!

 It is also an utter shame that at the end of the post, Klugewicz writes, “Scholars must compose sweeping narratives of the past that will appeal to a general audience…. And, finally, let us not forget to include humor in telling the story of America to the young, which will help to avoid boring them. Kids like people who can be funny.” It is people like Klugewicz, who advocate using backwards methods to teach history thus disgracing the discipline, who make good historians and scholars shy away from using humor and engaging narrative. When Klugewicz supports an approach to providing historical knowledge that completely disregards, in the words of Richard White, the “code of the discipline,” no one is going to side with him when it comes to writing techniques and style. He should have stopped while he was …behind, and left giving useful advice to the historians who are credible and know what they are talking about!

And on a side note, I think the emphasis on African American history, as seen through this week’s articles, stems from the fact that many of the nation’s conservatives and liberals involved with politics are based on the East Coast. There is less of an emphasis on the West and the West’s role in American history simply because of the legacy of the geographic bubble where these people live and work. In the East, the turning point in American history was the Civil War and all comes with that (slavery v. state’s rights, discrimination etc.). They need to take a lesson from Frederick Jackson Turner and recognize that the importance of the history of the American West in the larger narrative of American history. I think that would result in more discussions on broader topics from both liberals and conservatives alike.