Villainous Company

And yet, if there had never been dissent, the Bill of Rights might not exist. During the discussion over the adoption of the Constitution, there were Anti-Federalists, including figures like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Adams, James Madison, who argued against the adopting Constitution for various reasons, including the lack of a Bill of Rights.

"If the Founders wanted a society they could direct, why didn’t they establish a dictatorship or a monarchy and model their rule on what was the universal form of government at the time?"

Not that some of them didn't try, and because Washington wouldn't let them make him their king. Jefferson would scoff at the way Adams always referred to Washington as "His Highness," which Adams did because he thought Europe's monarchs would look down on a "President." It is arguable that Washington could have easily become President for life because he was so popular, but he stepped down after two terms. It is telling that when Napoleon was exiled to Elba, he reportedly said, "They wanted me to be another Washington." To not recognize this is to fail to recognize what an extraordinary individual Washington was.

The problem with talking about the "Founding Fathers" as a group who had the same, set goals in mind, is that it places a bunch of men who had wildly disparate opinions about what they were doing, and the reasons that they were doing it, into a singular group. The "Founding Fathers" were human beings who argued, disagreed, got upset, and were right about some things, and wrong about others, just like politicians today. Some of them had higher ideals of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," but others were likely thinking more about John Stuart Mill's "life, liberty, and property," (Daniel Shay's Rebellion involving poor, indebt Rev. War vets, comes to mind). Heck, some of them hated each other enough to kill each other (Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton). It is well documented that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were bitter political rivals, (just as it is well documented that they later reconciled and became friends in their elder years).

To say that all of them had the same motives for supporting some things and obscuring others is to erase the uniqueness of their achievement; that despite all their bickering, and bitter dislikes of each other, they achieved something amazing.

I agree, and frankly I haven't seen anyone in the Executive branch "crushing" Kerry for dissenting at the top of his lungs, nor have I seen anyone punished for launching completely irresponsible (and demonstrably untrue) accusations against virtually every major figure in the current administration.

My point wasn't that dissent was wrong.

It was that Kerry doesn't have a very good track record when it comes to tolerating criticism. He is all for freedom of speech so long as he and his supporters are the only ones left free to speak their minds.

And furthermore, there is a difference between speech and criminal acts like vandalism.

We do not need to resort to that sort of thing here in the United States - anyone can (and does) speak their mind. Breaking the law is another thing entirely.

Howard Zinn and his ilk are hermetically sealed paranoids. Arguing with someone like that reveals a tight circle of well-reasoned, and irrefutable arguments, that are, to a large extent, objectively wrong. But don't let the real world intrude!!
I feel this acutely today because I had an episode with someone like that on
Saturday afternoon, last.
And Alau is very perceptive, insightful and correct. We all like 'black and white' to issues, but sometimes it's all just shades of gray; except to the delusional mind!

Which really makes me wonder about JF Kerry sometimes. :)

Don't fergit the limp wrist of support.

One More Thing: I would like to point out that on Michelle Malkin's site, she disagrees with Pres. Bush's immigration policies. But I do NOT read vituperative obscenities such as the ones Madonna shouted about Bush at her so called 'concert.'

Madonna and Malkin have the same right to free speech. But I can go to Malkin's blog and read reasoned, responsible discourse for free and feel enlighted by the time spent there...when I would actually be depressed at the thought of shelling out fifty dollars to hear an over the hill floozy
swear...

As to vandalism, the mention of the term calls to mind that "Boston Tea Party" incident...

It is hard to work up consisted principles on this issue. I only have two, myself:

1) Patriotism and dissent are compatible, provided that you maintain a deep love for and loyalty to your country. You must love what you criticize. (Zinn, rather obviously, does not. Kerry seems not to either.)

This former is the "Chesterton" principle.

2) If you really believe the things these people claim to believe, you ought to be out fighting rather than sniping via diatribes composed in some graduate studies office. If these things were true, the patriot should be correcting his nation by any means necessary; destroying tyrants; refreshing the tree of liberty with their blood, and his. If you won't do that, you go in the pile of those practicing "evil political dissension" rather than in the list of noble patriots.

This latter is the "put up or shut up" principle.

I respectfully disagree with you, Grim. I do not think you need to be wearing your loyalty on your sleeve in order to criticize your country; I do not think you need to even need to love your country to criticize it. Should Japanese-American citizens whose parents were thrown into desert camps be required profess a love for their country before criticizing the system that allowed this to happen? How about Native Americans? They are just as American as you and I.

In reading conservative critiques of his book, such as the one in this post, much of the anger is against the particular interpretation of history, rather then the critiquing of his methodology or sources (save the bit about the Pequot War, but even then, the only presented evidence countering Zinn's interpretation is that of another historian) which is really the determination of "good history." I haven't read his book, but I've read many things influenced by it, and I ::preparing to duck the rotten tomatoes to be thrown at me:: believe that his interpretation is largely valid. Though I add the caveat that I have not checked his methodology or sources.

Despite many comments to the contrary, I believe (get ready for more flashing of my liberal colors here), that Howard Zinn is a patriot. Why is he a patriot? Because he shows that America was not founded by gods, but by people. The greatest danger to patriotism is a history that emphasizes only the "good parts" because it instills a false patriotism. If you need to be constantly told that your history is great, and your history is exceptional in order for your loyalty to country to survive, then that is no real form of patriotism, it is brainwashing. (I don't need to be consistently told how great it is to be a woman, or to be told how great my values or morals are, or how great it is to be a writer; it's part of who I am, and influences my everyday life). However, if you can read a book like Howard Zinn's book, acknowledge that his interpretation may be just as valid, and STILL maintain a loyalty for your country, that is real patriotism. People create countries, people create societies, and people are FLAWED. It is in seeing, and knowing these flaws, and working to overcome them, that real patriotism is created.

I think the very simple idea of peaceful dissent may be one of the greatest contributions America makes to humanity. Thousands of years from now when America is nothing but a memory (because if there is anything history teaches us, it's that nations rise and fall), I think (I hope) Americans will be remembered for 2 main ideals: the equality of all human beings, and the idea of dissent. People like Zinn are important because he shows how we have NOT lived up to our promise, which should make us strive all the more harder for it. To quote Peter Beinhart in this past Sunday's NY Times Magazine:

"Americans may fight evil…but that does not make us inherently good. And paradoxically, that very recognition makes national greatness possible."

By recognizing that we are human, that we are flawed, and that we CAN fail in our ideals, makes America exceptional, and makes us realize that we must strive all the harder to live up to the values we honor.

Well, actually I would have to take thoughtful exception to this premise:

"Americans may fight evil…but that does not make us inherently good. And paradoxically, that very recognition makes national greatness possible."

By recognizing that we are human, that we are flawed, and that we CAN fail in our ideals, makes America exceptional, and makes us realize that we must strive all the harder to live up to the values we honor.

No traditional history book (of which I am aware) argues that this nation was formed by Gods rather than people, that we cannot fail, that we do only good, nor that America has always lived up to her ideals. I learned history in the '60s and '70s and was never taught any of those things. To the contrary, I was taught that our ideas are worth fighting and dying for even when we fail to live up to them. Moreover I was taught that we have come a long way in 200 years and still have a long way to go. This is WAY different than what Zinn maintains.

Zinn's premise is not that we have failed to live up to our ideals. It is that our "ideals" are, in reality, only a sham constructed to perpetuate the rule of white elitists over oppressed minorities.

How can anyone, learning this, fail to be cynical about the value of our ideals? How can anyone take from that, that even with all its flaws (which, by the way, tend to be more HUMAN than institutional failings), America is still a good place to live? After all, Zinn has just told them the entire government was built on a lie intended to oppress others. Who is going to want to belong to, much less defend, such a nation?

And actually, most people do not realize that native Americans are citizens of a sovereign or quasi-sovereign power:

"Perhaps the most basic principles of all Indian law supported by a host of decisions...is the principle that those powers which are lawfully vested in an Indian tribes are not, in general delegated powers granted by express acts of Congress, but rather inherent powers of a limited sovereignty which has never been extinguished. Each Indian tribe begins its relationship with the Federal Government as a sovereign power, recognized as such in treaty and legislation. The powers of sovereignty have been limited from time to time by special treaties and laws designed to take form the Indian tribes control of matters which, in the judgement of Congress, then, must be examined to determine the limitations of tribal sovereignty rather than to determine its sources or its positive content. What is not expressly limited remains within the domain of tribal sovereignty."

Dissent is not patriotic, neither is it treasonous. Dissent is simply dissent.

Sometimes it can be patriotic, sometimes it can be treasonous, sometimes it can be helpful, sometimes it can be harmful.

The neo-nazis dissent from the mainstream view that white/blacks/jews are equal. Does that make their racism patriotic?

NAMBLA dissents from the mainstream view that children should not be sexual objects. Does that make their pedophilia/pederasty patriotic?

Capital "L" Libertarians dissent from the mainstream view that the War on Drugs is good policy. Does that make their libertine views unpatriotic?

No, No, and No.

No traditional history book (of which I am aware) argues that this nation was formed by Gods rather than people, that we cannot fail, that we do only good, nor that America has always lived up to her ideals.

I apologize for my poor turn of phrase. I am trying to say that many history textbooks are written in such a way (at least the ones that I’ve encountered) imply that everything was inevitable because our leaders were moral and wise in all things, (in effect, making them seem like great moral people to be put on pedestals) and that’s why everything turned out peachy keen. And little things like the fact that Jefferson talked about human equality while sleeping with Sally Hemings? Well that’s not important.

But the fact is, is that it is important. For a good portion of the country, the memory of the founding fathers is irrevocably colored by slavery and racism. To ignore these beliefs, and fail to discuss this history in class is tantamount to ignoring the historical experience of an entire group of people who were critical in forming this country. The marginalization of the African-American experience is equivalent, I might propose, to the marginalization of religion in American history today. But I digress,

Critics write that Zinn’s book leaves a lot of things out. But Zinn did not write this book not to be a comprehensive history; it’s assumed that you already know what the Boston Tea Party was and what the Civil War was. Zinn wrote this book to examine history written from the perspective of those that traditional history books leave out, the poor, blacks, and other minorities.
Now, I have to say reading ONLY this book, is like reading ONLY histories of dead presidents, or reading ONLY Hilary’s perspective of her husband or reading ONLY Newt’s perspective of Bill.

Zinn's premise is not that we have failed to live up to our ideals. It is that our "ideals" are, in reality, only a sham constructed to perpetuate the rule of white elitists over oppressed minorities.

First, I disagree with his characterization of Zinn’s book, (because I've talked about it with many who have read it) but I recognize I don’t have a leg to stand on because I haven’t read it. ::note to self, read Howard Zinn’s book::

How can anyone, learning this, fail to be cynical about the value of our ideals? … Who is going to want to belong to, much less defend, such a nation?

But so what? So what if they were? That doesn’t impact the EFFECT that they’ve had on people all over the world. Arguing about the motives of the people involved doesn’t change the effects of what happened. The value of our ideals, is shown, not in the motivations behind them, but in the results that they’ve had.

And that is where world history comes in. That is where you show that America, compared to the rest of the world, despite its failings, despite all the wrongs we’ve done, we’ve still done pretty good. In a globalized society, where borders are porous, we’re already in a race to keep and attract the best and the brightest (because we’re certainly not doing enough to produce our own, like physicists, nurses, and doctors).

Despite our racism and intolerance, and instances of disappearing liberties we are more tolerant, less racist, and more free then any other people on earth. Because of America, religious tolerance is thought of the norm rather than the exception. Because of America, ideas of human equality have drastically changed the way people relate to each other the world over. Because of America, there is a proportionally greater number of people on earth who can feed, clothe, and educate their children then at any time in human history, precisely because of our promoting of democratic ideals (even if we don’t always practice what we preach).

(And yes, Native-Americans are technically a sovereign/quasi-sovereign power; but again, there's another divide there between preaching and practice. Try telling the descendents of the Cherokees who got booted out of Georgia by Jackson that their a "sovereign nation", which is yet another incident that is allocated 1/2 a paragraph, if anything in a history textbook. People like Davy Crockett gave up his political career rather than support the removal of the Cherokee, and do we hear anything about this courage and bravery? Nope.)

Unfortunately, Zinn's history book is used as a text in many colleges schools. (and in my book a history book should at least attempt to be evenhanded: telling history "from the perspective of minorities" seems to more valid than telling it from the perspective of the dominant race or class: as you pointed out, both accounts are incomplete. I know I learned in history that slavery, racism, and Jim Crow were all very bad things - this seems a much more balanced view than attempting to "marginalize" the perspective of the very people who shaped events.

I know I also learned about facts like the real reason Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation (hint: he didn't much care about freeing blacks). This also doesn't seem terribly biased, yet I learned it long before accounts like Zinn's became fashionable.

But so what? So what if they were? That doesn’t impact the EFFECT that they’ve had on people all over the world. Arguing about the motives of the people involved doesn’t change the effects of what happened. The value of our ideals, is shown, not in the motivations behind them, but in the results that they’ve had.

I could not disagree more with this, for two reasons.

1. Immigrants should learn about the values of their adopted country, but if we overemphasize our failures that can't be a good thing. Again, our failures weren't hidden when I learned history.

2. Again, as I said, who will defend our country if what we teach is that the Founding Fathers were cynical opppressors bent only on keeping power to themselves, rather than that our understanding of and appreciation for the abilities (and even the humanity) of minorities and women was less developed then? That the failure to include them was more a failure of imagination and understanding than of malevolent intent?

Once again, I learned that the dominant view back then was that women and minorities were somehow inferior in intellect - given that understanding, why in the heck would anyone give them equal rights? This wasn't rocket science - it was plain old common sense even a child could understand. We grew, we evolved, and as we did so did the protections offered by our Constitution. But the understanding had to come first. We also learned (and this is a very valid point almost never addressed in revisionist history books) that democracy doesn't work too well when the electorate can't read or write, as most minorities and women (and much of the white male non-landowning class) indeed could not back then. This was the reasoning behind limiting voting rights.

Lastly, I think you are ignoring the portions of Zinn's work quoted right in my post (and bolded too!) when you say you're not sure about the characterization of his work. I actually was forced to read large excerpts of his work in my Humanities 101 (which I used to call Oppressors 101) class just a few years ago.

Because of America, there is a proportionally greater number of people on earth who can feed, clothe, and educate their children then at any time in human history, precisely because of our promoting of democratic ideals (even if we don’t always practice what we preach).

Yes, and this is precisely what *isn't* taught in books like this: the other side of the story.

Replacing one biased account (and I seem to have learned an awful lot of what you maintain is left out of traditional history books, and I went to school in a different state almost every year of my life while growing up, so I can tell you I was exposed to an awful lot of different history texts) with another that is just as biased if not more, only from another perspective, doesn't make much sense to me.

I guess I don't buy into the modern trend towards abandoning objectivity just because we don't always achieve it. In my mind, you should still try to be balanced. Any account of history "from the perspective of" women, minorities, or even the dreaded white male, is a less than full account and inherently flawed.

As to the Indians, again, I learned all about how awful we were at times. But I also learned something you will not learn often in many modern history classes: that we were essentially at war over land and that many Indians tribes practiced some pretty horrifying and barbaric acts on both European settlers and members of their own tribes. I know from talking to my own kids and their friends for over 20 years what they were taught in school, and it wasn't a balanced account. But having relatives from out West, including several who both teach and are in school administration on Indian reservations probably gives me a different perspective.

So does reading first-hand accounts of Indian massacres from my ancestors, which are in my family's possession.

The truth of history is that things generally don't happen in a vacuum, and covering up the other side isn't really a valid approach to making history more accurate.

And FWIW, I was also assigned "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee" in school. I have never forgotten it. But I was never assigned books like A Distant Trumpet, which chronicles the faults and strengths of both Indians and whites in what I thought was a very balanced way.

What sets my teeth on edge is the triumph of subjectivity and identity politics over an emphasis on looking at history through the prism of both contemporary experience and a moral framework. You cannot really apply today's mores to yesterday's world: you have to be honest enough to admit that people have changed and even then, there were good people of all races pushing this country forward with the tools they had on hand as well as villains.

Sometime I should probably send you a few links explaining the type of thing that sets me off - not having read what you have read, I have no idea whether your experience in school resembled the things that drive me batsh*t :)

You might even agree with some of it, and have a perspective I haven't thought of, but I have to admit up front that having taken both traditional and "perspective-based" history classes, I still find I detest the latter. I prefer an account that attempts to be impartial to one that openly admits subjective bias anytime.

I read a biography of Teddy Roosevelt by H.W. Brands, and so when he appeared on C-Span to dicsuss this and other aspects of writing history, I listened in.
He discussed a couple of points regarding historians and history, and I will try to summarize succintly, although they are subtle and I might not make this clear.

1) As people are 'making history' whether on a grand scale or personally (as in biographies, etc.) a narrative, or 'story line' to the sequence of events doesn't always occur at the time.
2) An historian has a choice of how to arrange the 'facts', and thus create a narrative to the events so that they appear to move in a linear or logical fashion, and are readable and interesting.
3) Many historians tend to leave out certain 'facts' which may not be relevant to the narrative they create, but which may be of interest to the more than casual reader.
4) The objective challenge to the honest historian, then, is to present as many facts as possible in some coherent way, and try not to create too 'dense' of a historical volume to encumber a reader. Maybe a narrative will emerge. (That was Brands' take on it, anyways.)

H.W. Brands' book was based largely on the letters of T.R., with Brands writing creating a narrative to tie much of this recorded and anecdotal history together. It is a very different read than the two books written so far by Edmund Morris on Teddy Roosevelt, and it conveys a different feel. I would say 'nuanced', but that word is a little too fru-fru for me.:)
Edmund Morris definently writes a more focused narrative, encompassing more of the culture around the politics also, sort of creating a kind of determinist backdrop to events.

Mr. Zinn (like many historians, including Herodotus, the 'Father of History' or the 'Father of Lies'., depending on who you listen to), has a perspective, and is trying to use some selected parts of history to project this.
Taken alone, his writing is far from complete of even close to objective. Taken with a big dash of salt, I think it is a useful read to gain a perspective that many people do not have of American history. It is not entirely 'truthful', as in 'complete', but an analysis from a neo-Marxist point of view. Read it and decide for yourself.
I remarked earlier that I thought he was a 'hermitically sealed paranoid', which is my personal analysis of Marxist thought and people who promote it, but then again, that's MY narrative!
Just as D.W. Griffiths "Birth of a Nation" in part glorifies the KKK, perspectives can change as the years pass. My biggest problem with Zinn and people like him are that they tend to prey upon the intellectually naive in our society (i.e. college students, and I was one once!), who may be well schooled, but lacking in breadth of good judgement of human character. That only comes with age, really. You can't teach it, and some people never aquire it. Zinn's type of writer tries to create the sense of 'gnosis', that is, hidden information.
"Hey, look, here's a conspiracy of silence about this part of American history, and that invalidates anything else you might know."
Really?
It's truly not intellectually honest, but perhaps a useful perspective to teach. When college professors get frustrated at trying to get their students attention, shock value sometimes works! :)

The problem I had with Zinn was that he decided and determined that those who were Christians did the looting and pillaging, when he forgets the instances in America's colonial days and westward expansion that there were parties of religionists who treated the native tribes with courtesy and respect. There were clashes, which was inevitable considering culture and religion, but overall, the Pilgrims kept their deals with the Indians, as did
others. I also have first hand accounts of my ancestors' dealing with some of the tribes in Utah
and with the exception of the Black Hawk War, those encounters were friendly.

Being raised in Arizona and California we heard both sides of the Conquest, and that was before Mr. Zinn. To this day, the Franciscans are beloved throughout California by native and Anglo alike. So, the fallout and discontent sounds to me more like an entitlement to the descendents of the oppressed and he preys on that from a Marxist perspective.

Fine. I will be the first to stand in line to get my family's land in France back.

Alau:

Have you ever been to a Native American gathering? Invariably, at every one I've attended, there is a special dance to honor veterans who have served in the US military, defending the nation.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. They've got complaints. I'll listen. Ira Hayes was not alone: he is representative of the people. We can't meet every claim, naturally. But when they bring forth a claim, it always gets a sympathetic hearing from me. I know they love America even in spite of the pains it has caused them, and so everything they wish to say is something I am glad to hear.

Zinn is different. He does not love what he criticizes; as Cassandra notes, he detests it. I think that blinds him to the truth about it.

You want a historiographical complaint about him. Fine: A man should be capable of seeing past materialist critiques, but Zinn doesn't seem to be.

When he disapproves of the target, nothing they do is right. Insofar as he can find any material explanation for a good behavior, he thinks it trumps any ethical reason, and is the "real" reason. This is true even though the ethical reason is frequently cited in the primary sources, and the unstated reason never once. Zinn is playing at psychoanalysis of his subjects (victims, really), not doing history. Why did Jefferson or Washington do this noble thing? They had something to gain (at someone's expense!).

When he finds evidence of bad behavior by disapproving subjects, however, he is certain he has discovered their real ethical core -- that, again, though the primary sources never mention the drives he cites, and offer other explanations instead. If it is Washington or Jefferson's slavekeeping, once more -- psychoanalysis, not fact, and hateful psychoanalysis at that.

The man is unreliable because he does not love what he criticizes. He is, therefore, unfair in his harshness. A man who refuses to see anything bad in what he loves is also blind; but not more blind.

There are two good ways to write history, and Zinn occupies neither. The first is to write an objective history, which you can do only when you are truly objective -- me writing about the Hundred Years War, say. I have no dog in the fight.

The other is to write not a history, but a mythology. This is absolutely as necessary as writing a history, because the human brain needs both kinds of thought. We are hardwired to learn this way -- you must have encountered, in your historiography, the article about Betsy Ross as archetypal mother. We need a thoughtful, well constructed, loving mythology -- because if we do not create a considered mythology, we shall adopt one anyway unconsciously. The brain simply works that way.

Theodore Roosevelt was cited by Don, and he is an excellent example. He wrote a book, with Senator Lodge, about American history. It is the "good parts version," so to speak, but it is the best example I know of the mythic function of history. A man who read that book, so long as he did not set out to become a historian, would know all he needed to know about America. He would have all his mythic needs filled. His natural love of country would be engaged rather than perverted into an unnatural hate of his homeland (a hatred of country is as damaging to the soul as hating your mother or father). His heart would be turned to the higher things: the pursuit of those virtues which Roosevelt and Lodge rightly recognized as the heart of the American cause.

A man raised on that book will set forth with a love of America that is based on defending those principles. He will fight America when she is wrong, because he will know what would make her right. Nothing less than virtue will be his cause, because he believes in that virtue, and that it is his country's mission in the world. Anything less than its pursuit would be a betrayal.

A man who was taught out of Zinn would come away from the experience sick at heart. He would beleive his country a poisoned land, full of hate for every good person and every good cause. The virtues he would see as lies, not things to be pursued, but horrid jokes at our expense. If he pursues anything, it will be tearing down the "lies" by showing everyone that his country is ignoble. For him to believe his cause is true, he must prove that his country is ignoble, by finding fault with it in every place -- and telling the world what he thinks he has found.

Which man improves America? Which one tears her down? Which one defends her, while correcting her flaws? Which one abandons her, and betrays her to every enemy?

The honor dance for veterans is not an idle symbol. These people understand, and are therefore my brothers. It is a pity I do not have more.

Grim,
As always you are a riveting read.

A man raised on that book will set forth with a love of America that is based on defending those principles. He will fight America when she is wrong, because he will know what would make her right. Nothing less than virtue will be his cause, because he believes in that virtue, and that it is his country's mission in the world. Anything less than its pursuit would be a betrayal.

Thank you Grim. That is what I was trying to say, but could not manage.

When I say who will defend America, I do not mean defend Americans *because they are American*, but defend what we stand for. If you believe we stand for principles which are right even if we can't always live up to them, you will uphold the right and abhor the wrong.

If you believe America was founded on lies, the only basis for defending her becomes self-interest, and that is precisely the *worst* reason for the citizens of the world's greatest superpower.

Wow!!

I am honored. There are some high forms of pandering. To think that good folks like you might consider me the highest....well...I get a little choked up.

What Don wrote is absolutely true; all historians pick and choose the evidence to craft a particular narrative. That is why people like Zinn believe it is never possible for anyone to be objective, and he so he skews the other way, a fact people should keep in mind when reading Zinn.(He also is influenced by postmodernism, which to boil down very very simplistically, is essentially that everyone's got an agenda, and even if they don't think they do, they have an agenda. And I noticed that you had a quote from Zinn, but all quotes can be taken out of context (something that everyone does; particularly liberals picking on Bush).

My particular educational experience was more like:

"Blah blah blah…so people like Washington and Jefferson founded this great country based on ideals of equality…"
Students raises hand: "What about the slaves they owned?"
"Yes they owned slaves, but don't you understand they founded this great country based on ideals of equality?"
"But they owned slaves; that's not equality."
"But they founded this great country based on ideals of equality."

Or

"…and so Teddy Roosevelt was a great president…"
Student raises hand: "Wasn't he a racist?"
"Yes, but don't you understand he was a great president?"
"But he was a racist."
"But he was a great president."

Or

"And the Statue of Liberty where it says "give me your poor, etc." welcoming immigrants from all over."
Student raises hand: "What about the Chinese exclusion act?"
"Yes but that's not important."

In effect, this said to me that the experiences of ethnic minorities, though sad was largely unimportant and inconsequential to the American story and the development of America. So yes, some things like this were acknowledged in my classes (usually in one sentence in a textbook, or 30 secs in class), but there was never any time spent explaining, why DESPITE these failings, why America was inherently good. I was just told, essentially, that America was good, and that the experience of these minorities, was just a little blip.

That's nice, but it didn't do anything to confront the perceptions and ideas that students (who were mainly poor and working class African-American kids) brought to class, and so they left the class with the same ideas before they came in: American history is the story of white men who enslaved blacks and other minorities, and their refusal to really talk about it is why America is racist today. (Note that I don't personally believe this, but although I may think this is wrong, I know that this is a widely held (though not held by all) belief in the African-American community, and thus, something I need to deal with).

It's not just about teaching history; it's about confronting the history that is believed outside of the classroom. And isn't that what a lot of conservatives say about college classes today? That you're just taught by liberal professors America is bad, without any explanation why or any forum to discuss your ideas? My conservative friends in my classes tell me how they hate writing papers spewing back what they think is the liberal prof's b.s., just to get a good grade. I don't think kids should continue having to do the same.

Zinn is important because it gives a voice to the experience that many minorities feel, and responding to his interpretation of what was previously "covered up." The way I see it, America's importance and inherent ideals are in no way countered by Zinn (I think we shall have to leave the discussion of his patriotism as an issue that we agree to disagree with), but rather presents an alternate picture that needs to be discussed. Refusing to engage in this discussion is what creates a divided America, each believing that they know the "real" story, creating an obnoxious victim mentality.

A man raised on that book will set forth with a love of America that is based on defending those principles. He will fight America when she is wrong, because he will know what would make her right.

Personally, my biggest fear about books like this, is that people will NOT fight America when it is wrong. I fear that it instills an idea of American exceptionalism that America, when pursuing those ideals can do no wrong, and that our leaders have, and continue to be largely guided by moral principles that lead to good things. Thus, questioning and criticizing our moral leaders, means that you are questioning those ideals, which makes you not a patriot. (My criticizing of liberal and Democratic stupidity does not make me any less of a liberal than picking on Bush makes me less of an American; he's still my President). And that is the line of reasoning and thinking that I think is most dangerous to American values. The road to hell, they say, is paved with good intentions.

I understand what you are trying to say, but it doesn't make much sense to me. One thing about Marines is that they genuinely love and are devoted to the Marine Corps. And if you go onto a Marine base and hang around, you'll see Marines constantly correct each other, to a much greater degree than I have ever seen anywhere else in my entire life. They think being a Marine is something they have to live up to, and if you fall short they are not shy about letting you know.

How can you truly buy into the idea of American exceptionalism and then turn about and excuse your country when it fails to live up to the ideas that *make* us so fortunate?

Exceptionalism is not nationalism. It far more akin to noblesse oblige, which is the very antithesis of what you describe: the idea that we are blessed and therefore have a duty to help others. We can't do that if we fail to honor our own rules.

I think the problem may be that, as alau experienced, kids get only one side of the story with no depth.

Although I have to say that I was not taught this way, and I attended a different school almost every year of my childhood so I think I probably had a far broader experience of different educational systems than most people do.

The other interesting thing in your comment was the bit about kids asking about things they'd heard, such as "Wasn't Roosevelt a racist?".

Well, that is somewhat subjective, isn't it? I imagine most people of that time period shared similar views on race - by the standard of his time I don't think Roosevelt stood out as particularly heinous. So I have to wonder what use it is to tell kids, "Gee: President Roosevelt was a racist" when in reality, though the guy always made me cringe a bit, he wasn't exactly out on a limb when compared to his contemporaries. Most children aren't sophisticated enough to distinguish nuances. When raising my kids, I told them what I thought they could take on board as they grew, and became more and more frank with them as their understanding increased with maturity.

The problem with labels like "racist" is first that they're subjective and second that they tend to be applied unevenly.

And the idea of the nation being founded on ideals of equality, as I said earlier, made perfect sense taken in context: i.e., when you realize they truly didn't think women and minorities WERE equal. The notion that even white men were created equal was quite radical in those days. Trying to teach history based on today's mores (which is precisely what Zinn is trying to do) is really a bad approach.

It is far more instructive to learn what I learned: that we have come a long, long way in our understanding of many things in 200+ years. Providing historical context allows students to see history as it really is: an unfolding of events over time along a continuum. Things were different back then and they will be even more different in the future. That type of perspective is what the study of history is intended to provide; a sense that societies and nations evolve - this is why there are Amendments to the Constitution and why laws change as public policy and opinion do.

Trying to retroactively apply a modern standard to centuries-old history just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Again, it seems an incomplete picture.

Theodore Roosevelt himself demonstrates the truth of Cassandra's point. Roosevelt literally wrote the book; and yet few have done more to correct America than he did. He was not blinded by "class interests," but worked to break trusts; he established parks; and when he found his country to be lacking, no one was a harsher critic.

More, no one was a more successful one: Americans understood that he, like they themselves, loved America. You can look at his era and see that he was exceptionally successful, for his era, in pushing reforms. There were strong progressive movements at the time, but they by and large were not able to capture the machinery of power. Finally, though they were able to tap farmers and workers, the rest of the country would not trust them.

Theodore Roosevelt, on the other hand, really did institute progressive policies; he really broke the trusts, he really erected the first parks and great conservation efforts. These projects were not less radical because he did them than if some union-backed candidate had done them. The people, however trusted him in a way they didn't trust the unions -- whose primary loyalty often seemed to be to the Internationals rather than to the nation.

The same thing was at work in the 2004 campaign. Kerry did poorly in part because he is a candidate, not of America, but of the International; there is a constituency even in America for that, but it is not the majority. Zell Miller could say that Kerry 'wants France to decide when America can defend herself,' and a great part of America nodded along. It appeared that Kerry was more interested in the UN Security Council and his "international test" than he was in protecting America and advancing her interests.

What I'm saying here is that patriotism is not a partisan enterprise. If anything, it's particularly important for radical reformers -- important not to give service to it, but to really feel it in their bones. It is the only way that such reforms become possible.

Today's frothing-at-the-mouth piece by Juan Cole shows the problem his ilk faces -- he is another of Zinn's type. He throws up images taken out of context, endless slurs against his country's honor, conspiracy theories and rants -- and uses them to build what I suppose is intended as an argument.

The conclusion of his argument is, "We are not going to let you have a war against Iran." Yet how, really, does he propose to stop one? If he takes that argument before the electorate, not only will he not capture the government in the elections, he'll be lucky if he isn't hanged. More, they would be right to distrust him: for he does not love them, nor their country, nor does he have our interests at heart.

Good points Grim but then you get the whole "intellectual" arguments about what does and does not consitute patriotism. Sedition is nothing more than a form of patriotism to the likes of Cole et al. True patriotism is not a form of thought as you state. It is part of your being. Genetic? Inherited? Who knows but it's there at birth IMHO. Your life then walks that path and it is beyond comprehension or ability to understand the type of seditious "intellectual" thought processes of the enemy within.

It's funny, you get this, "it is patriotism to question our government" tripe. Uh yeah, not only that but it is our duty to watchdog our government. There is a truly correct direction to deal with that type of scrutiny and disagreement. 60s/70s lessons learned perhaps? It's just simply convienent for those of such seditious character to only question those they do not like. Funny how that works. Their "patriotism" is all so much smoke and mirrors. There is truly nothing about this Country worthy of laying down one's life for.

And you can take that to the bank!

See, the problem was that there was NO discussion of the context of the times, or anything of the sort, just an attitude that "that's irrelevant, let's move on."

Trying to retroactively apply a modern standard to centuries-old history just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Again, it seems an incomplete picture.

And on this I totally agree. But if this point is never discussed in class, then kids are just going to keep thinking that Roosevelt was a racist. If you don't examine why people think that and discuss it, then you'll never get rid of that image.

I understand what you are trying to say, but it doesn't make much sense to me.

That's good to know about the Marines. My fear comes from looking at the Bush Administration. I don't think that they believe that anyone but their political supporters have anything valid to say. I feel like they wave the flag, and say those who disagree with them, disagree with American values. (Of course liberals and conservatives alike do this, but he's the President! He has a greater responsibility!)

There is fear on both sides here, derived from different fears for our country. You and others fear a history that teachers our children to be ashamed, so ashamed that they will not defend America, thus undermining the future of America; I fear a history that teaches our children to be too proud, so proud that they believe that they can do no wrong, thus undermining the future of America.

but to really feel it in their bones.

My personal take is that liberals generally don't feel the need to preface every criticism of America with a caveat, "but I love America." I don't feel the need to be screaming "I'M AWOMAN AND A FEMINIST AND I'M PROUD TO BE A WOMAN," just as I don't feel the need to scream "I'M PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN" all the time. Sometimes I feel like people who do that are like rubbing it in other peoples' faces going "ha ha ha, I'm an American and you're not" and sticking their tongue out at everyone else. I feel it sometimes can be boorish, like Donald Trump walking into a homeless shelter going, "I'm rich and you're not." Isn't it obvious? I'm confident in my belief about America and its values; it's so ingrained that I don't need to keep telling everyone how much better they are than everyone else's.

alau:

I can totally understand the not wanting to advertise your patriotism, but I also think that conservatives and liberals have a very different view of the whole subject.

I don't think Grim was saying you have to reflexively state your love for America when you criticize her.

The way we perceive a lot of the loonier criticism (which, let's face it, is what gets the press) is that it comes from people who don't really have a 'we're all in this together' viewpoint. Like Ted Kennedy announcing that Saddam's torture chambers were open again because of Abu Ghuraib.

That was just tremendously unfair and a cheap shot too. And it did damage to our national image because it was a gross exaggeration of what actually happened from a member of our Congress - a public figure.

No one was fed into plastic shredders, and there is a HUGE difference between a group of people breaking the law and the government itself formally conducting mass torture sessions. And he knew that, knew foreigners would hear him say it, knew it was grossly untrue, and yet he said it anyway.

That wasn't legitimate criticism from someone who loves his country. He could have said, "This is not consistent with our values. We have laws and these people must be punished." I did. Other conservatives did.

He could even have said, as I and many other conservatives did, "This makes me feel ashamed for my country. They brought shame on the military and on America."

But he didn't do any of those things. He just spewed. People who have stickers on their cars and trucks are reacting to that sort of nonsense. They're saying, "You know what? I am NOT ashamed to be an American. And I am NOT ashamed of our military." And I have to tell you that the military in particular feels under siege most of the time.

We have never forgotten being spit on and sworn at and reviled during Viet Nam and we hear all the hateful things Americans still say. My husband has been called a baby killer, murderer, and far worse by people (liberals) who read this blog.

So I think it *isn't* obvious anymore, and you can't take it for granted that people love this country. That doesn't mean you have to genuflect and kiss the flag every 20 seconds, but given some of the outright shameful behavior that has gone on, people are not going to just trust that you do love your country. I think that may be the single biggest misunderstanding between liberals and conservatives: you feel like we all think you're unpatriotic, but have you ever considered that we don't appreciate being called stupid, mindless, superstitious throwbacks who just blindly follow authority?

I know you don't say that, or you wouldn't be here. But that's an incredibly patronizing attitude, yet it is pervasive in the press, in Hollywood, in academia. You wouldn't believe how many conservatives hide their beliefs for fear of losing their jobs. My daughter in law doesn't tell anyone at work she's a Republican, and I don't blame her one bit.

I found a pretty good essay on the idea of patiotism, as espoused by the Founders (Federalists and Anti-Federalists) at:

www.yale.edu/isps/seminars/politheo/petranovich.pdf

And this essay is well foot-noted, and none of the referenced scholars is Howard Zinn. :)

The conflicting ideas of patriotism to the new Union by the Federalist and Anti-Federalists still seem to resonating today.

It's an interesting argument, and insightful as to the origins of patriotic thought. I would like to hear more, however, about how you think it continues to resonate.

Grimmy,
That's a good question. I started writing a much longer comment last night when I posted this, and then cut it out because it seemed a little far afield. But I'll try to say something and keep it short and to the point. Later.

That wasn't legitimate criticism from someone who loves his country. He could have said, "This is not consistent with our values. We have laws and these people must be punished." I did. Other conservatives did.

Because again, loudmouths who say things like that are just trying to get attention. Which in turn, obscures the people who are trying to engage in constructive dialogue, who don't say things that can be criticized/lauded in 30-sec sound bites.

My daughter in law doesn't tell anyone at work she's a Republican, and I don't blame her one bit.

See that is precisely the kind of thing that I think is unAmerican and dangerous. If your beliefs and principles are so threatened by criticism that you try to suppress rather than confront the message, then what kind of principles are those? Are they really so flimsy? Things like that make me SO angry.

Sometime later (after I finish all these end-of-semester papers), I'll tell you about how while I was an undergraduate, I joined the editorial board of the conservative mag on campus (and yes I was a liberal then too) but to ensure that conservatives perspectives got a fair airing in the campus community which they weren't. I don't know how much good I did (I got ALOT of flack; more than once I had to show off my ACLU card, so like you were saying, I suppose that's where people feel the need to "brandish their colors") but it was one of the best learning experiences I had. They became some of my best friends.

It's not criticism she is worried about alau.

It's retaliation based on her political beliefs, and she's already seen several examples of that in only two years. There are three conservatives that she knows of and none of the three feel comfortable that they can admit they're Republicans. She bucks the system all the time where the kids are concerned, but why should she bring down that kind of nonsense on her own head when it won't help her do her job or be a better teacher?

I also served on numerous boards with faculty when I was at school and observed exactly the same predjudice. The board deep-sixed two of the best qualified candidates we looked at because they were suspected of conservative leanings - this had NOTHING to do with their job performance.

Bottom line: if your job is on the line, are you going to make such a big deal over your political party that you get fired or harassed as a brand new graduate? I don't think so.

It's really a bit unfair, IMO, to accuse her of having flimsy principles when the very people making it impossible for her to do so pretend to support diversity and academic freedom.

Just whose principles are "flimsy"?

My deepest apologies (though a week later; better late then never, I've been swamped), I was writing that with few hours of sleep and did not realize how it poorly I expressed myself. When I was talking about flimsy principles, I was talking about the liberals in this instance, who create an enviroment that was in which being a Republican is dangerous and risks someone's livelihood. That is not American at all. Didn't we learn that lesson with McCarthy? Apparently not.