http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north324.html

America's Textbooks and America's Wars

by Gary North

Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link 
to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com  Email a link to this 
articleEmail a link to this article  Printer-friendly version of this 
articlePrinter-friendly version of this article  View a list of the most 
popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our 
site

"The victors write the textbooks." In the field of historiography, there is 
no more universally acknowledged rule.

When children are required by law to attend tax-funded schools and read 
state-approved textbooks, these textbooks establish the terms of discussion. 
History textbooks have long served as the State's primary means of 
establishing public opinion. This was true in Prussia before it was true in 
the United States. The Prussian educational model, for kindergarten through 
graduate school, became the model for the American public schools, beginning 
as early as the 1840s. (The best study of the history of America's public 
school philosophy is R. J. Rushdoony's 1963 book, The Messianic Character of 
American Education.)

The classroom study of American history was used by the founders of American 
public education as a substitute for instruction in Christianity, meaning 
Protestantism. From the experiment's beginning in New England in the late 
1830s, this substitution was deceptive. It was the substitution of a 
different religion: the religion of nationalism.

The battle for the hearts and minds of the voters begins in the history 
textbooks. Yet there are few studies of the history of American high school 
history textbooks. Textbooks are thrown out of most high school libraries 
when new editions appear. University libraries do not put college-level 
textbooks on the shelves because of space considerations. High school 
textbooks are also ignored. Thus, it is extremely difficult to write a 
history of American public school textbooks, either at the high school or 
college level. Francis Fitzgerald's relatively short book, America Revised 
(1980), is one of the few studies on this subject. She is a liberal 
revisionist of the multicultural persuasion, who does not break with the 
philosophy of compulsory, tax-funded education. Her complaint is that her 
crowd has not written the textbooks. Her bibliography could serve as the 
starting point for a detailed history, but there is no market for such a 
history.

As Thomas Kuhn wrote a generation ago in The Structure of Scientific 
Revolutions, science textbooks deliberately create an illusion, namely, that 
the history of science has been progressive, definitive, and smooth. The 
roads not travelled were supposedly all dead ends. They were not potential 
pathways to better solutions. So, there is little awareness among science 
students of the continuing warfare within the scientific community. Old 
textbooks are abandoned. New ones continue the story of the victors.

The same is true of American history textbooks. If history majors were made 
aware in college of the shifting narratives in high school history 
textbooks, generation by generation and war by war, they might become more 
aware of the political and ideological wars that have produced these varying 
accounts of what America was, is, and why.

The victors write the textbooks. Historical truth is presented as a series 
of victorious wars that inevitably produced the march of democracy. The fact 
that a different outcome for several of these wars would have produced a 
very different world and a very different kind of democracy is not 
considered.

A SERIES OF WARS

The textbook story of America's expansion has been the story of a series of 
wars, beginning with the Pequot War (1637-38) in New England. King Philip's 
War, an Indian uprising in 1676 in western Massachusetts, was paralleled by 
a minor Indian rebellion in Virginia in the same year. In both wars, the 
biggest losers were peaceful Indians who had settled in their own towns and 
had been trading with the colonists.

The French and Indian War of 1756-63, sometimes called the Seven Years War, 
had begun in North America in 1754, and had produced Braddock's famous 
defeat by the French and their Indian allies in 1755. A young Virginia 
militia officer, George Washington, had been part of Braddock's ill-fated 
troops. The British Navy won the Seven Years War, which led to the transfer 
of French territory east of the Mississippi to Great Britain. It also led to 
Parliament's post-war attempt tax the colonies to help pay for the war's 
debts and also expenses connected with British troops stationed in North 
America. The Stamp Act of 1765 led to a tax revolt and political resistance 
by colonists that was to evolve into a war of independence a decade later.

It is revealing that in case after case, until after 1815, every time 
America got into a war, there was an invasion of Canada. This is rarely 
mentioned in the textbooks, mainly because we lost every war with Canada, 
and also because these invasions look too much like land grabs.

America as a nation has been involved in a series of full-scale wars ever 
since 1775: the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the 
Civil War, the Spanish-American War and its immediate aftermath, the 
Philippine War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, the 
Afghan War, and the Iraq War.

The Philippine War (1899-1902) was not put into high school American history 
textbooks because it was a war against Filipinos who wanted independence. 
The United States had officially entered the war against Spain in 1898 on 
behalf of the Cubans, who also wanted independence. Spain had ceded the 
Philippines to the United States in 1899. Our brutal suppression of 
Filipinos, who suffered an insurgent military death toll of 20,000 and a 
civilian death toll of possibly 200,000, was never considered consistent 
with the American democratic tradition, so it was not discussed in the 
pre-Vietnam War history textbooks. There is no better example in American 
history textbooks of the memory hole process in action.

Until Korea, the United States won all of its wars. Korea was technically a 
victory because the United States rolled back North Korea's invasion of 
South Korea, but the war was perceived by the voters as a stalemate. 
Eisenhower's famous campaign promise, "I shall go to Korea" to get the hated 
stalemate settled, assured him of victory in 1952. Legally, the Korean War 
was never settled. A signed truce exists; no peace treaty was ever signed.

Vietnam was a defeat. That defeat began to re-shape some American voters' 
attitudes toward the wisdom of foreign wars. Duplicity by Johnson and Nixon 
led, briefly, to a consideration of Roosevelt's duplicity in 1941 in trying 
to get the United States into the European war. Such an accusation had been 
dismissed as nonsense by most historians prior to the early 1970s. This 
brief reconsideration did not find its way into the textbooks.

A victory against tiny Panama in 1989, followed by Gulf I in 1991, restored 
Americans' confidence in the use of military action to solve problems - 
problems that had not been taken seriously by politicians or the public 
prior to both wars.

This brings us to Afghanistan and Iraq. Our seeming victory in Afghanistan, 
which has cost American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, and which has 
led to the full recovery of the poppy-heroin trade, which the Taliban had 
suppressed, receives little attention. "Out of sight, out of mind" is the 
rule. Iraq is front-page news and will continue to be until President Bush 
announces a victory and withdraws our troops.

The American public was strongly in favor of the war in Iraq in April, 2003. 
"Mission Accomplished" had validated it. Opinion has changed as the cost in 
American blood has increased, day by day. American voters care nothing about 
the 100,000 civilian deaths that the war has inflicted, any more than they 
cared about the deaths of at least 225,000 Iraqi children that the embargo 
inflicted under Clinton. The U.S. Government does not report such figures, 
any more than it reported the figures during the Philippine War.

American voters do care about deaths of American troops. They seem not to 
care about the extra billion dollars or so that the war is costing them each 
week. Because the federal government spends $2.4 trillion a year, the costs 
of the Iraq War are perceived by voters as marginal, which in fact is the 
case. The immensity of the peacetime welfare-warfare State is so enormous 
today that the Iraq War is regarded as a mere fiscal annoyance.

OVER THERE

The textbook account of the history of the United States is the history of 
successful territorial expansion, which has often involved wars. An 
exception was the Louisiana Purchase, assuming that the ratifying wars 
against the Indians were not really wars, which of course they were.

This expansion of territory is presented as the story of the spread of 
democracy. The unique combination of cheap land, mobile families, the ballot 
box, and tax-funded education was the theme of American history textbooks 
until the multiculturalists took over in the 1970s. What was never a theme 
was the combination of private ownership, property rights, low taxation, and 
voluntary contract as the basis of America's wealth. The bureaucrats who 
were legally in charge of training America's youth, with salaries, 
buildings, and textbooks funded by taxpayers, never showed a great deal of 
enthusiasm for the story of America as the story of the spread of the free 
market.

The story that comes through is this one: Americans marched across the 
continent, defeating by war any group that resisted this expansion. Then, 
when they reached the Pacific, they sailed across the Pacific to liberate 
the Filipinos from Spanish-speaking tyrants. Then, when Europe got itself 
into a quagmire, Americans marched over there to straighten out that 
continent.

Basically, the textbook story of America for over a century was a George M. 
Cohan musical without the music. Yankee Doodle Dandy, born on the fourth of 
July, marched over there, waving the grand old flag. The history of America 
boils down to this: "Johnny get your gun, get your gun, get your gun. Take 
it on the run, on the run, on the run."

What has bothered political liberals about this textbook account is that 
Johnny has always owned his gun. They have spent half a century trying to 
reinterpret the second amendment to mean that the gun belongs to the State, 
as does Johnny.

Johnny always had a gun. Historian Carroll Quigley was correct when he 
argued that eighteenth-century democracy was established because the common 
man owned a weapon equal in firepower to what the typical soldier carried.

It was taking this gun on the run, at the beck and call of the State, that 
has long constituted Johnny's problem. It got Johnny into bad habits early.

BANGING HEADS FOR FUN AND PROFIT

The division between conservatives and libertarians over the issue of war 
did not begin with Vietnam. It began in 1796. The Jeffersonians had tried to 
avoid getting into the war between France and England. The Federalists, good 
conservatives all, wanted the country to oppose France whenever possible. 
New England traders wanted close economic ties with Great Britain. Their 
political goal was a veiled neutrality, but with profits from trade with 
England.

The Jeffersonians were compromised from the beginning. They had supported 
armed revolution against Great Britain in 1775. The original conservatives 
had not. They lost that argument. They either left the country or moved into 
new regions where their loyalty to Great Britain would not be known. 
Post-war libertarians and conservatives were united in their commitment to 
war as a means of national self-determination and annexation.

In the Constitutional debate of 1787, the libertarians were on the side of 
the Articles of Confederation: a weak central government, no strong 
executive, no national tariffs, and no standing Army. As President, George 
Washington opposed all four views. By the time the nation divided 
politically under John Adams, the original libertarians were out of the 
picture. Their fallen flag was being carried by the Jeffersonians.

In 1803, Jefferson bought Louisiana, despite the fact that the Constitution 
did not authorize this. In 1812, his colleague and successor James Madison 
took the nation into war with Great Britain. Immediately, he ordered General 
Hull to invade Canada. Hull surrendered Detroit in August without firing a 
shot. Two other invasion attempts failed that summer when New York 
militiamen refused to cross the border: Lake Champlain and the Niagara 
Frontier.

The wars of expansion continued. Americans got used to the idea that free 
land was available for the taking. Wars, treaties with the Indians - 
invariably broken by Washington - and more wars followed.

The Southern states seceded in 1861, but within the South, there had long 
been politicians who publicly spoke of conquering Mexico, Cuba, and Central 
America as slave territories. These were the "filibusters." The lust for 
land prevailed, and the means of expansion, when push came to shove, was 
force of arms.

This is the story of America in the textbooks. This is the lesson that 
Americans have taught their children for two centuries: "Land stolen by 
force of military arms is not stolen property. It is the lawful fruit of the 
march of democracy."

The story of the triumph of a well-armed State has not been confined to 
international relations. It has spread to domestic relations. This tradition 
was the heart of the Whig Party and was extended by its successor, the 
Republican Party. William Jennings Bryan appropriated it for the Democrats 
in his 1896 "Cross of Gold" speech. Franklin Roosevelt is still said to have 
saved capitalism from the capitalists. This is a domestic version of the 
presumption, although never explicitly stated in the textbooks, that 
McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt saved the Filipinos from the Filipinos.

CONCLUSION

Anti-war libertarians face an uphill battle. The libertarian political 
tradition has always been compromised by a willingness to call Johnny to get 
his gun and take it on the run. The anti-imperial position never got much of 
a hearing after 1901. Non-intervention in Europe failed politically when 
Wilson and Roosevelt showed how easy it was to win the Presidency with a 
campaign promise of not going to war and then taking the country into war 
within a year of their inauguration - Wilson, within a month. The cheering 
was deafening when Johnny got his gun.

The Cold War was a series of miniwars, hot and cold, to secure American 
military supremacy in the name of resisting Communism. Pre-emptive wars in 
Afghanistan and Iraq reveal the continuing popularity of head-banging among 
the electorate, at least until the victims bang back. Kerry campaigned on a 
platform of banging heads even harder with help from Europe.

Fox News openly articulates a position that the other networks and big city 
newspapers assented to and profited from in March of 2003. The popularity of 
the idea of securing American national objectives through force of arms did 
not start with Fox News. It started when Congress in 1775 ordered Benedict 
Arnold to invade Canada. If he had won, he probably would have been named 
Governor-general of Canada and would not have switched sides. We would speak 
glowingly of General Arnold and General Washington, the two great heroes of 
the American Revolution.

When Johnny is ready and able to get his gun in defense of his own property, 
liberty expands. When he is handed a gun by the United States government and 
is told to take it on the run, liberty shrinks, beginning with Johnny and 
Johnny's neighbors, who must finance Johnny's adventure. In the name of 
extending liberty abroad, beginning with Benedict Arnold, Johnny has marched 
over there. When he returns - if he returns - he finds less liberty over 
here.

November 18, 2004

-- 
Jay P Hailey ~Meow!~
MSNIM - jayphailey ;
AIM -jayphailey03;
ICQ - 37959005
HTTP://jayphailey.8m.com

"Growl for me, Worf.  Show me you still care." - Q



_______________________________________________
Libnw mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw
Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw

Reply via email to