Conservatives Cannot Stand 'Multiculturalism'

(h/t Blue Jersey)

Conservatives seem to have a hissy fit every time our educational system decides to start teaching our students about other cultures at the expense of American history and culture. This is highlighted in Elan Journo's ignorant rant in the article 'Multicultural' means anti-American. He states:

One text acclaims the inhabitants of West Africa in pre-Columbian times for having prosperous economies and for establishing a university in Timbuktu. But it ignores their brutal trade in slaves and the proliferation of far more consequential institutions of learning in Paris, Oxford and elsewhere in Europe.....

What these textbooks reveal is a concerted effort to portray the most backward, impoverished and murderous cultures as advanced, prosperous and life-enhancing. Multiculturalism's goal is not to teach about other cultures, but to promote -- by means of distortions and half-truths -- the notion that non-Western cultures are as good as, if not better than, Western culture.

Like many conservatives, he seems to have the America Uber Alles attitude. He misses the whole point these texts are trying to achieve in showing that these cultures weren't the backwards, barbaric peoples that Western history has always portrayed. They have culture, they have education and learning, they made advancements and contributions to human society. But Journo is automatically dismissive of these peoples because they aren't Western. All of a sudden, because they are not part of the Western civilized world they are inferior and their achievements are not important, only the dark side of their cultures which prove the superiority of Western culture.

He of course forgets slavery was not limited to the peoples of these African cultures, but was a crime also committed by the so called morally superior Western world. It also is important to note that slavery in the Western world was a much more brutal institution than in Africa since in the West the slaves brought from Africa were considered sub-human and had no chance in advancing in our society while slaves in many African societies typically had the ability to rise up in the ranks and even become a full member of the family of their former master. A slave in Africa had many more rights than a slave in the United States.

Also does he forget our slaughter of the indigenous tribes in our country? Or what about the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II? Oh wait, I'm pointing out America's weaknesses and am thus anti-America and striving for the downfall of our country. If conservatives like Journo actually accepted to be educated in other cultures rather than only American history, then maybe they would actually have the ability to understand rather than bemoaning the teaching of the history of an inferior culture over that of the master race.

Suggested Reading:

Things Fall Apart, by Chinua Achebe

African Perspectives on Colonialism, by A. Adu Boahen

The Life of Olaudah Equiano, by Olaudah Equiano

Democrats or Whigs?

I should be writing a thesis rather than speculating over historical implications for the present, but of course I’m a procrastinator who will do anything to avoid actually doing what I should be doing. Therefore I will now take the time to put down some thoughts I have had on the recent Democratic surrender to Bush.

The political game they are playing is highly dangerous. For 2008 the Democrats are betting on this highly unpopular and costly war in Iraq to sweep them into the white house, not to mention unbreakable majorities in the House and Senate. The gamble they are taking is that the current large anti-war constituency will forgive them and continue to support them, despite the compromise they have made. In fact, they are counting on its growth as increased support for their party, though they are unwilling to stand up and support the voice of this growing majority at this moment because it is not large enough yet.

Before I go into my historical analogy, let me explain what beliefs make up this group of people so generally referred to as ‘anti-war’. There are those who are purely anti-war, no matter what the war. There are those who realize we need to combat terrorism, but this misadventure had nothing to do with it and is in fact exacerbating the problem. There are those who realize our economy cannot handle the deficit required to continue the war. There are those who see that we have strategically lost the war and that it is not worth sacrificing more American lives for a war already lost. There are many more, but this brief sample shows the diversity of understanding, both practical and principled, of those of us who are simply labeled ‘anti-war’.

With their compromising and unwillingness to support the values and views of their constituency, the Democrats are in danger of following the footsteps of the Whig Party. In the two decades before the Civil War, the Whigs unwillingness to unite behind an abolitionist platform caused their downfall. They continually ‘compromised’ giving the slave South everything it wanted. They knew abolitionist sentiment was growing in the North, but they did not yet see it as a powerful enough force. Their mentality was that it would all pass over, give the slave holders what they wanted and in a few decades there would be no more slavery. The fact that they chose to wait out the problem rather than confront it head on lead to their downfall.

Now, the ‘abolitionist’, just like those referred to as ‘anti-war’, were much more diverse than the general label given to them. Sure, there were those like Gerrit Smith, Garrison, and Frederick Douglass, who were abolition agitators, fighting for the abolishment of slavery. There were also those in the business community who resented being marginalized or even locked out in southern business since free labor was discouraged. Also, there were those who didn’t give a damn if slavery remained or not, but once they became required by law to help in capturing slaves that escaped to the North, then you can bet they were quite unhappy about that. Just as today’s ‘anti-war’ activists, those labeled ‘abolitionists’ were diverse and included those who supported the cause on both grounds of practical and principled.

Even more parallels could be made, like that between the slave industry of the 19^th century and the military industrial complex of today, but that would be deviating from my point just a bit. The Democrats, like the Whigs, may have ended their party by agreeing to this ‘compromise’. I must admit this would not sadden me, as it would leave an opening for a new party to take up the banner of principle and liberal values that would actually fight for it’s beliefs rather than compromise it’s principles in order to ensure a political safety net. To their surprise, the Democrats might actually find that safety net to be unsecured.

On Celebrating Treason

Watching the documentary on Sherman’s March on the history channel the other day got me to thinking about a problem we have in this country. That problem is the continued celebration of the legacy of the Confederacy. They look back on the Confederacy with nostalgia and claim to celebrate its legacy of honor. In reality, the true legacy of the Confederacy is treason, lawlessness, and racial inequality/persecution.

It is quite ironic the type of people who celebrate the Confederacy. These people today are quick to point the finger at those who criticize our government and call us traitors. At the same time they are celebrating the Confederacy, a mass treason by the South against our United States government.

They decry any attempt to remove the Confederate battle flag from certain Southern capital buildings, claiming discrimination and their right to celebrate the legacy. This is ironic since the legacy of the South is that of discrimination against African Americans: first in bondage, and then as second class citizens. Is this a legacy that we really want our country to be celebrating?

Also they claim to celebrate the honor of the Confederate troops and bravery on the battlefield against overwhelming odds. After the defeat in the war, this is what took over and the claim that they could not win against the overwhelming industrial strength and population of the North. Actually, if that is true I just call it stupid. One doesn’t go into a fight knowing one is going to lose unless they have absolutely no choice. The South had a choice, and it chose treason in order to protect its immoral institution.

Please, no one give me the states right argument. That is, for those unfamiliar with the subject, that the South did not secede to protect slavery but to protect states rights over federal authority. That was pure rhetoric, total crap, and only applied for the Southern states since they had no problem imposing their will on the Northern states. What was that will that was imposed? That would be the Fugitive Slave Law, which in effect forced all citizens in the North to become slave police. If they helped an escaped slave or did not participate in capturing an escaped slave they could be punished by fines and/or jail time. This is what broke the back, this is why abolitionism took hold, because the South was not intent on leaving things alone, they had to force an otherwise complacent Northern population, typically not effected or exposed to slavery, and made them part of the system.

As for Sherman’s March, and the bitterness still in the South, and the complaints what is the viewpoint of these people who continue to celebrate the Confederacy on our current farce in Iraq? Or our continuing miffed stance towards Iran? They are conservative so likely there are those among their ranks who have advocated using nuclear weapons against Iran and Iraq and their populations. Of course this would have no correlation, according to them, to the suffering of their ancestors due to Sherman’s March since they were all innocent and over in the Middle East they are all only Muslim terrorists who we must destroy to protect our country.

I could go on and on with this, but I think my point has been made. These same people who deride government critics as treasonous themselves celebrate treason when they celebrate the Confederacy. They celebrate slavery and racial injustice when they celebrate the Confederacy. They celebrate the death of over 600,000 men on both sides during that war just so they could keep fellow humans in bondage. Celebrating the Confederacy is not a celebration of honor and bravery; it is a celebration of treason, death, and racism.

Iraq Occupation compared to WWII

Republican apologists, when defending this administration and its policies in Iraq often invoke the memory of World War II. So, it is always interesting when I am reading for class and come over little tidbits. Here is a quotation from an essay, specifically on German Women in post-war West Germany, but dealing with attitudes towards occupation:

Nevertheless, although Inge symbolizes the moral decline of her society, she is not to blame for this decline. Rather, foreign occupation is. In the final meeting of most of the book's central characters, an American officer who is one of the moral anchors of the tale admits that the military occupation was hypocritical and corrupting. "The occupation was a dictatorship, even if in democratic garb.... We arrived here with the Bible in one hand and the knout in the other.... We believed ourselves to be missionaries, but we did not love those under our charge.... Our efforts were marked by the motto: '...and unless you are willing I shall have to use force.'" When a German in the circle remarks that Hitler had employed a similar motto, the American responds that Hitler hadn't claimed democracy-- and he hadn't been a foreigner. Neither the officer nor the author of the book are apologists for Nazism; this comparison of Hitler and the occupation government--to Hitler's apparent advantage-- is thus astonishing. The message is clear: West Germany must attain national sovereignty and the Yanks must go home.

(Elizabeth Heineman, The Hour of the Woman; from The Miracle Years, Hanna Schissler, ed.)

This does provoke some thought on our current situation in Iraq. Actually, just replace Hitler, German(y), and Nazism with Saddam Hussein, Iraq(i), and Baathism and the attitude is the same. We have one replaced one dictatorship for another, just this one has the trappings of democracy and is led by a foreign power.

History for Sheeple, Lesson #1

The talking points mimicked by those who support neo-conservative politicians, pundits and their agenda (even if they most definitely do not understand the totality of that agenda), is annoying at the very least, and frightening in that it indicates both a lack of knowledge and empathy on the part of many of our nations citizens. The most disturbing of these, at least for me, is the repetition of the neo-con version of history, propagated by those without a background in the historical field, but only the wish to create and maintain a vision of history acceptable to their own narrow, egocentric worldview. Since I am myself a student of history I am compelled to offer these ‘lessons’ if you will in, clearing up willful misconceptions of history held by those on the extreme right. I will try and address such topics that are either a current talking point in the media or are just generalized misconceptions that have now become quite orthodox among the mass of ditto-head blog commenters.

For the first installment, my focus is on the confusion the right-wing masses when it comes to political systems. If you have called a liberal or progressive, both a fascist and a communist then you are guilty of this confusion, especially if you did so in the same sentence. I’m going to have to break this down into a few parts, so if you cannot be bothered to read the rest, and want a simpler and more humorous explanation, go here: http://hypocrisytoday.com/polit-2.htm.

First off, one cannot call the same person both a communist and a fascist since both have been historically opposed to each other. Fascists hate communists, communists hate fascists, the only time they got along was the non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, and we all know how well that went. To make it simple, Fascism is a right-wing ideology, and communism left-wing. The only similarity between communism and fascism is totalitarian form of government, which for communism is not part of doctrine and for fascism is actually quite debatable, especially in the case of Nazi Germany.

Communism, I must also note, is more of an economic system than a political system. Communism is opposed to Capitalism, not to Democracy. Actually, if communism were to adhere to pure Marxist ideology, it would be a democratic system, maybe even a pure democracy. Fascism, on the other hand, is capitalism gone wild, allowing for the economic and social hegemony of corporations.

What happened to communism, how it was perverted or misused, can be broken down into those who influenced such parts:

Leninism: Upon overthrowing the revolutionary government in Russia, the Bolsheviks needed to consolidate power. A major hurdle was for the new communist government were the royalist forces, who were funded by the West which opposed the new communist government fearing it to be a threat to their own capitalist hegemony. In response, Lenin took steps to focus the government in fewer hands so as to maintain power and be able to respond to threats. He also gave the excuse that the people of Russia were not yet ready, so he would hold onto power until a time when the people were ready to exercise it themselves. This of course, is a crock of crap, but it was enough. In short, upon gaining power the revolutionaries went from revolutionary leftists to reactionary conservatives who wished to maintain power.

Stalinism: I do not know if there is any other ruler who was so thoroughly totalitarian in their rule. No one but Stalin held the reigns of power, the party couldn’t control him. Even if he suspected someone was against him, they were dead. Good example of a government masquerading as communist when it actually is not.

Maoist: Like Lenin, lost sight of the cause in the interest of maintaining power. Was good at helping the people and bringing them together in living the communist life, but became reactionary once power was attained. Not only that, he could not govern. All his policies were attempts to revive the glory and the ability Mao showed at overcoming adversity. However, the fact that the communist government in China has been able to adapt and incorporate capitalist systems shows a difference from the Russian system, if not the Russian people, since it is still in existence.

Ho Chi Minh: Vietnamese ‘communism’ was definitely the most pragmatic of all the systems. The fact that Vietnam became communist is the fault of the West since they refused, after WWI, to give up their colonies. Ho Chi Minh actually admired the United States, and even quoted from the Declaration of Independence during an address on the occasion of the forming of the North Vietnamese government. They were quite independent from other communist powers, defied both Russia and China, even while facing the US in war, and invading Cambodia and deposing Pol Pot causing retaliation from both the US and China. Ho Chi Minh did not mean Vietnam to embrace a totalitarian communist ideology, but one of democracy. Seventy years of war, including the final 10 years which included our support of the illegitimate government in South Vietnam, is what caused the establishment of a more totalitarian state rather than a democratic one.

So, what is the explanation for the right-wing throwing all these negative labels at liberals? My theory is that the right is incapable of dealing with any system of thought that is not binary. Good and Evil, white and black, male and female are all examples of binary thought. Binary thought lacks the complexity needed to explain everything that does not fit into their narrow categories. Conservatives, of course, think that are gods own gift and can see themselves as only good. Therefore their opposition must, logically confined to their system of thought, be evil. Also, they do not see Nazism, thus fascism, as good, so it must be evil and therefore a liberal ideology. The logic only works, of course, in this narrow worldview.

Now, I hope that this little history lesson has cleared things up (for those who are capable of more than binary thought, anyway). Remember, if we are going to start throwing negative political system labels at each other, liberals are communist and conservatives are fascists.