Heroification, however wrongly placed can still be good?

I knew next to nothing about the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars before reading about Rep. Harman’s resignation from Congress to be its next president, CEO and director. But I did learn some things 13 or 14 years ago about Woodrow Wilson, that prompted me to do a little checking. So I wiki’d it, and went to its site:

The mission of the Center is to commemorate the ideals and concerns of Woodrow Wilson by: providing a link between the world of ideas and the world of policy; and fostering research, study, discussion, and collaboration among a full spectrum of individuals concerned with policy and scholarship in national and world affairs.
And...
Woodrow Wilson, nicknamed the "schoolmaster in politics," is chiefly remembered for his high-minded idealism, which appeared both in his leadership on the faculty and in the presidency of Princeton University, and in his national and world statesmanship during and after World War I.
So what is it about the two freely admitted cherry-picked quotes that bugs me? I consider James Loewen’s 1995 book, Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, one of the most important books I have ever read. And I have read a lot. It opened my eyes, took me out of my comfort zone, and inspired a lot more reading in areas I either abandoned or never felt an interest in. (I am left-brained, technically minded, naturally and enhanced skeptical.) For me, history was something you took in school because you had to. I chose other electives in college, because I didn’t have to. And I always had problems with the teachers’ interpretations not agreeing with my own (meaning I didn’t get as many “A”s because I couldn’t break the code of what they wanted me to say.) To me, history, as I felt about psychology - and biology, sociology, philosophy, etc. - history...was too arbitrary. But, we all seem to know the same Trivial Pursuit nuggets that pervade popular history "knowledge", regardless of whether we liked the subject or not. And there's a reason. For those unfamiliar with Loewen’s book, he surveyed the 12 most commonly sold high school American history textbooks, “only to find an embarrassing blend of bland optimism, blind nationalism, and plain misinformation, weighing in at an average of 888 pages and almost five pounds”, uncovering a host of blatant errors, dismal treatment of significant events (an average of three pages on the Battle of Gettysburg, one and a half of which were about Lincoln’s Address), omissions, white-washing, and {well known "News" channel personality}-izing serious lack of scholarship. I understand that most college courses will correct the damage, but how many of us studied college level history? Or if we did, which “facts” stuck with us? I grew up in a small town in Connecticut. I can’t remember what American history book we had, but given that we were a small school district in a small state, I don’t think we got much say in what the textbook companies sold us. Not unlike the problem the Texas Board of Education decision to rewrite texts visits on the small markets. Nor do I think there was much critical thought put into which books were better than others. I imagine it all came down to the best cost. So I don’t know if my textbook was one of the earlier editions of those Loewen checked, but given the small school, small state conditions it probably was. One of the (minor) reasons we homeschool is that total lack of control students of compulsory schools and their parents have over what is being taught - or not taught. Loewen does present his findings with bias and editorial. But, he did his research, presents the sources the reader can check, and his points are intuitively obvious to me. More so now than when I first read the book, because on retroflection I think/know he’s right. Writing this, I surveyed some of the comments from the 10% “one star” critics on Amazon and while you can read for yourself the mindset of the naysayers, more than 70% of the 394 reviews posted were favorable. Now, Woodrow Wilson quick shot news bites that might normally come to mind of the average person are: “he kept us out of war” (until it became obvious that the Central Powers were going to lose, and then we’d better get in and get our piece, thus the Fourteen Points - or was it really submarine attacks?); president of Princeton and the only US President with a Ph.D; a failed League of Nations; had a stroke and maybe his wife ran the government until his term ended; “make the world safe for democracy”; perhaps the Espionage and Sedition Acts, but not likely. Not covered in the glorifying textbooks of our youth is how Wilson was an outspoken racist (is that the "high-minded" part?) who undid all the desegregation his Republican (remember the times…the Republicans almost liked people back then) predecessors worked to implement, ordering the segregation of white and black federal employees. Not covered is the “world” that he wanted to make safe for democracy only included Europe; under his orders, direction or just on his watch, the US invaded Mexico 11 times, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Cuba and Panama and militarily occupied Nicaragua all eight years and controlled its government, setting the tone for pretty much then on for how we are viewed in Central America (sensing a parallel with a place Middle of East?). Plus we apparently funded and militarily supported the “wrong” side of the Russian revolution. Read the book for the cites, but an excerpt dealing specifically with Wilson can be read here). I guess it's obvious now why those quotes bugged me. Anyway, I learned from reading Loewen to be more critical of things about which I know little or nothing, not just things I am interested in about which I may or may not know nothing. And I resolved to read more history - if only to unlearn what I thought I knew. I like footnotes now, which is why, off-topic, though I enjoy his work, David McCullough frustrates me because he makes statements without reference (bibliographies don’t count) which may be his summation, may be “actual” history, or may be totally off. And who has time to check? The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars has an interesting Board of Trustees, including the cabinet positions of Secs of State, HHS, and Education, though I’m not sure how active they are. And Wikipedia hasn’t been updated, but it caught my eye that physician and medical fiction author Robin Cook apparently used to be one of the private citizen trustees. The Center has a very broad set of programs that do seem to work toward the ideals they profess, if attributed to one so not a hero. I encourage a tour of their web site. (They even had a lecture in 2005 on “some of the most repressive legislation with respect to free speech” being the work of Woodrow Wilson, so they don’t hide their namesake’s history.) I can't help but wonder if Rep. Harman’s strong political positions will adjust the focus of the Center, or if it’s even possible under the charter that she can. Why else would she take the job? I recommend taking the time to read Loewen’s book. It should spark at least one, "Oh, really?" I also have another by him, almost as fascinating: “Lies Across America: What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong”. It's about those brown signs on the side of the road and how we repaint (or sometimes just paint) the stories the ways we want, facts be damned.

Continue ReadingHeroification, however wrongly placed can still be good?

Because Sometimes Things Are Forgotten That Shouldn’t Be

This is a completely personal anecdote, so take it for what it's worth. This is about a defining moment for me in my education as an egalitarian. Equality is something we talk about, we assume to be the case for everyone, and never really question. Here, it's the air we breathe. It's not true. We are not all equal. And in spite of our all our lip service to the idea of equality under the law or the equality of opportunity, we all know, if we're honest, that we're still trying to get to that level. Probably it's a function of how well we think our lives are at any given moment. "If I'm doing all right, there's no problem. What are those people over there complaining about? I don't see anything wrong with my life." Well. This is about gender equality. It's one of the most under-considered things in our present world. I saw a PBS special last week about early television and on it Angie Dickinson was talking about her series Police Woman. Breakthrough television. It had been the first dramatic tv show since the mid-60s to be headed by a female in prime time. It was shortly before Charlie's Angels and a decade after both Honey West and The Girl From U.N.C.L.E. During the interview, Dickinson commented that the feminists had been angry with her because she hadn't used the show as a statement for the cause. She defended herself by declaring that she was feminine not a feminist---as if being a feminist were somehow a bad thing, a dirty word, a slur. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingBecause Sometimes Things Are Forgotten That Shouldn’t Be

Raging Revisionist Republican Racism Ramping Up for 2012 Races

Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS) has made efforts to reconcile his past strong support for segregationist organizations with statements that such organizations as the Citizens’ Councils and more recently the Council of Conservative Citizens in Yazoo City and Mississippi are “town leaders” and just “business organizations.” Those same folks started the segregated Carroll Academy in Yazoo City Mississippi, where Gov. Barbour’s kids went to school. Governor Barbour was mentioned in a recent Weekly Standard article as a possible GOP nominee to run for president against President Barack Obama in 2012. Governor Barbour said of racism and segregation in Yazoo City, Mississippi as he grew up there in the 1960’s; “I just don’t remember it being that bad.” That Governor Barbour should have sentimental recollections of the most racist, segregationist organizations in his hometown isn’t surprising. In the recent Weekly Standard article Barbour says he went to hear a speech by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. but, didn’t hear anything because he was “distracted by girls.” Farther North, Republican US House member Michele Bachmann (R-MN) had this to say about America, the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and slavery during the early American years; “…the very founders that wrote these documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the united States.” Congresswoman Bachmann apparently is unaware that many of the Founding Fathers were slave owners and that Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the US Constitution declared slaves to be 3/5 of a person for the census and purposes of apportionment of US House seats, tax disbursements and the Electoral College. Slavery and involuntary servitude, except prison slavery, were abolished by the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution adopted on December 18, 1865. Before the 2008 election, Rep. Bachmann also called for investigation of then Senator Obama and his supporters as “Anti-American.” [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingRaging Revisionist Republican Racism Ramping Up for 2012 Races

The Rich

In the February 2011 edition of Harper's Magazine (in an article titled "Easy Chair: Servile Disobedience"), Thomas Frank offers a sharp challenge for The Rich. Now he's not talking about all those who are rich. I assume he's focusing on The Rich who proudly own and control Congress. There's something different about those rich people…

One 2009 study in Psychological Science found that, in conversations with strangers, higher-status people tend to do more doodling and fidgeting and also to use fewer "engagement cues"-looking at the other person, laughing, and nodding their heads. A 2010 paper published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that "lower-class individuals" turned out to be better performers on measures of such a "prosocial" virtues as generosity, charity, and helpfulness. A third study found that those of higher status were noticeably worse in assessing the emotions of others or figuring out what facial expressions meant. All of which is to say, The Rich are different from you and me. They are ruder and less generous. They don't get what others are thinking. And apparently they don't really care. If you stop and think about it for a second, you understand that all of this makes sense. People don't craft poisoned collateralized debt obligations by calling on what they learned in Sunday school.… [T]he billionaires with the strongest sense of class solidarity have another plan for the disposable income: activating their lobbyists in Washington, building grassroots movements to march on their behalf, and using their media properties to run experiments on human credulity. Even their giving is a form of taking. For example, Charles Koch, of Wichita oil fame, recently circulated to his "network of business and philanthropic leaders" an invitation to a meeting at which-if their last meeting's agenda is any indication-they will discuss strategies for beating back environmentalism and the "threat" of financial regulation. This is a kind of philanthropy that pays dividends.… Americans are born to serve and assist the wealthy; it is our inalienable duty.… We cater to the wealthy in our work lives and we glorify them in our leisure.… We take up collections for the public schools because we feel the fortunes of the rich ought to go unencumbered by that burden.
Frank's article should be read out loud, word by word to be fully appreciated. It paints a somber picture of America's class struggle, but the first step toward change is forcing one to open one's eyes. I only hope that we are in the midst of a mere class struggle and not at the end of a great experiment that culminated with Citizen's United. I can just imagine many wealthy politically active people protesting, "The fact that I am rich didn't make anyone else poor." That argument still works for me for those people who are not showering Washington DC with big money in return for special privileges that siphon off my tax dollars and impinge on my civil rights. Who can any longer contest with a serious face that The Rich, including big corporate interests (telecoms, health insurers, military contractors and bankers), can get whatever they want from Congress. Where is this lesson in grade school government textbooks?

Continue ReadingThe Rich