Kentucky Wisdom?

         "I believe that history might be, and ought to be, taught in a new fashion so as to make the meaning of it as a process of evolution intelligible to the young."

                          Thomas Huxley

     This seems to be exactly what the Far Rightists fear when they criticize history texts for examining all sides of an issue instead of draping atrocities in the flag and moving on.  (see Philippine Insurrection, Spanish American War, etc ) We now have  school board members, some of whom are not far past literate , who feel obligated to manipulate the version of reality taught in classrooms.  History, to these folks is not an evolutionary process, subject to reexamination, rather it is fixed in stone, its connotations forever to remain as they were considered and or interpreted  contemporaneously. What do I mean? 

An example or two should suffice.

          Let's examine George Armstrong Custer's legacy as an example of an evolving interpretation of history.  Even though an early NY Times report actually ran a story confirming the rash and arrogant nature of Custer's decision to attack the Sioux and Cheyenne encampment along the Rosebud, many Americans grew up between 1876 and  1950, or so,  believing the "heroic" cavalry leader had somehow simply been the victim of bad luck. 

     In 1941, American moviegoers, fearing global warfare, were "uplifted"  by "They Died With Their Boots On", a highly fictionalized Custer biopic which lionized Custer's courage and bravery.   By about the 1960s , while some history books, such as the ones favored in some districts still today, were still painting Custer as the Indian's victim, most had revaluated Custer in the light of his , actions rather than legend.   Modern historians are generally in agreement that Custer's  hubris was responsible the   massacre.    

        Another example from the 20th century is the Vietnam War and its aftermath. Immediately post war, (Feb. 29, 1946)  Ho Chi Minh begged, then President,  Harry Truman in a poignant telegram to honor the spirit of the Atlantic Charter and the UN Charter, both of which called for an end to colonialism, and   insist that France not be allowed to reoccupy the portion of Southeast Asia known as "French Indo-China."  

     The result turned  on the ill health of  FDR, whose death left no written or even well formulated policy regarding the region.  Roosevelt, according to staffers close to him in the last term and the portion of his fourth which he served, recount his orally having made it clear that he did not favor  French return to physical presence or even influence  in the region. The history of what followed has evolved over the past 60 years. Americans, being fed a version of Communism which colored all Communists the same shade of  red were warned by McCarthy, The Dulles brothers and others ranted that all Reds were the same and it was our God given duty to help the French. While Truman stopped short of committing ground troops, we did just about everything else he could to help the French retake the entire nation and later aided the former French puppet king in  retaining control of the southern part of  what we were now calling  Vietnam. 

     We were warned  by historically illiterate politicians of a Communist Vietnam as being simply an extension of Red China's Asian influence. This ignored the fact of the almost 2000 years of enmity between China and Vietnam.  Skip ahead 2 million or better Vietnamese, American, Laotian and  Cambodian deaths and notice that we are trading partners with a unified Vietnam, a condition which we might have engineered 60 years and many  lives earlier, if we had just learned from history instead of accepting the static view that  Ho Chi Minh was a clone of  Stalin and/or Lenin, instead of just a nationalist who was sick of living in an occupied nation.

       This static view of history cripples every generation exposed to it, by implying that we must meet every  emerging circumstance with the same failed tactics used in the past. leaders who dare to even ideate other, often innovative, approaches are usually ridiculed by their far right critics.

It seems to me that there are some in America, unfortunately in many  cases in government, who believe that the nation can remain fixed in time in a state of existence consistent with their nostalgic world view, while the rest of the world, including our own population demographic,  is continually morphing.   These men and women seem to believe that if they just wish hard enough and click their heels together and pass laws, America will remain stuck at Mel's Diner ca 1960 with Richie, Potsy and the Fonz. To accomplish that end they are willing to tear down any institution , regardless of its positive aspects, that they view as inimical to their personal aims. 

     In the world of Mitch McConnell, America will eternally have a white majority, women will know their place, the poor will remain too poor to buy insurance, the rich will get richer and that's the plan God has for the USA. That certainly reflects the Palin/Romney/Faux News/Perry  point of view.

        The reason for the previous paragraphs is to hold up for inspection some of the intentions stated by such notables as new Senate majority leader, McConnell.  Just like those who would freeze history and deny its evolutionary nature McConnell has stated his intention of attempting to reverse women's rights to choose, pass legislation which would modify the Affordable Care Act in a manner which would cause several millions of currently insured  working families to lose coverage, and further gut financial reform, even though under-regulated Wall  Street operators were the cause of collapse of 2008. 

         McConnell, today, in a veritable orgy of self aggrandizement  took  Republican credit for the 11 million new jobs and the 5.8% unemployment rate, which was accomplished with constant growth 2 years earlier than candidate Romney had promised it in 2012.  The Senator from Kentucky has also voiced his intention to fight the President on immigration.  I think the Far Rightists believe that if they can just "make it like it was" (a real world  impossibility)  their supporters, the Kochs and Romneys and Waltons will like them better. I get the sad feeling that they are blind when looking forward and nostalgic when they reflect on the good old days of the Rockefellers, Morgans, Vanderbilts  and the other robber barons.

        I believe Frederick Douglass spoke prophetically when he said,    "Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.

        Look around!